If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

[criminal records] On August 24, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution due to the obstruction of business by the Jeju District Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 1, 2016.

around 21:00 on October 16, 2016, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s convenience store business by force for about one-hour period of time by failing to enter the victim’s convenience store by making the victim’s convenience store that he/she is under the influence of alcohol and alcohol at the E convenience store managed by the victim D, and making the victim and the victim with a time fee, and by making the customer to enter the convenience store before the convenience store.

The Defendant of the 2017 Highest 459 on September 24, 2016, operated by the victim G on September 14, 2016 at Seopopopopo City F, Seopopo City on September 24, 2016 to leave and die the victim.

"Along with the influence of 10 minutes, it interfered with the victim's Schlage's business operation by force, such as preventing customers, who were frightening and entering the duster, from drinking, etc.

Summary of Evidence

"2016 Highest 2905"

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written statements of D;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: References to inquiries, such as criminal history, references to summary information of the case, and copies of the judgment “2017 order 459”;

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. G statements;

1. Copy of the victim's DNA set;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, investigation report (Attachment to confirmation of period of stay of execution and judgment, etc.);

1. Relevant Article 314 of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act and the selection of fines for the crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (hereinafter “Criminal Procedure Act”) has the history of having been punished six times by obstructing the performance of duties, and there are many other kinds of records of having been punished by other violent crimes.

In particular, the defendant from around 2012.