피고인들은 2011. 9. 24. 22:27경 대전 동구 D 피해자 E이 관리하는 F 식당 내에서 술과 안주를 시켜 먹은 후 식당을 나갔다가, 피고인 A이 지갑을 놓고 간 것을 알고 다시 위 식당을 찾아가 피고인 A의 지갑을 확인하던 중 지갑 안에 있던 현금을 그 전에 사용하였음에도 위 식당 내에서 없어진 것으로 잘못 알고, 피고인 B는 피해자에게 "아줌마, 지갑에 돈이 많이 있었는데 왜 하나도 없냐, 누가 손을 댔냐"라고 말하고, 피고인 A은 "씨발년"이라고 큰 소리를 지르며 욕설을 하고 탁자를 치는 등 행패를 부려 그곳에서 음식을 먹고 있던 손님들을 나가게 하고, 식당 안으로 들어오던 손님들을 들어오지 못하게 함으로써 공모하여 약 40분 동안 위력으로써 피해자의 식당 영업 업무를 방해하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Partial statement of the witness A;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a copy of the 112 patrol log;

1. Relevant Articles 314 (1) and 30 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and the choice of punishment;

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

1. The Defendants and their defense counsel asserted on the assertion of the Defendants and their defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, respectively, of the provisional payment order, asserts that the Defendants and their defense counsel only told Defendant A, and they do not commit the instant crime in collusion with the Defendant’s statement in the

In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, Defendant B, first of all, made a large voice among the above restaurant and many customers, such as “whether or not they have any money on the wall,” and “whether or not they have any money on the wall,” etc., and Defendant A was actively told Defendant A or did not avoid his job even while Defendant A committed a large interest.