When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

On February 26, 2014, at around 19:15, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s restaurant business by force for about 25 minutes, including the following: (a) other customers, who engage in drinking, drinking, and drinking in the E-cafeteria in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, Seoul-gu, with a large voice, “this spulpule”, and (b) the victim prevented him from doing so; and (c) the victim was “Ispule, Ispon, Ispon, Ispon, Ispon,” and interfered with the victim’s restaurant business by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, including the Defendant, who was sentenced several times to a punishment due to the crime of interference with business, etc., is a majority of violent crimes, and as a result, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and again committed the instant crime without going against it even during the repeated crime period, it is reasonable to strictly punish the Defendant.

However, this decision is delivered with the decision of the court below by taking into account the following facts: the defendant has been engaged in his occupation in good faith and has not reoffending in the future; the victim wanted to take the defendant's wife against the defendant; the degree of damage does not seem to have been serious; and the defendant lives with economic difficulties after divorce.