around 21:40 on May 11, 2014, the Defendant: (a) obstructed the victim’s convenience store business by force by avoiding disturbance for 30 minutes, such as smoking tobacco, and speaking for customers to “sprinke Afro” on the basis of “E convenience store” where the victim D (here, 18 years of age) working as an employee; (b) the victim D (here, e.g., the 18 years of age) was working as an employee.

"2014 Highest 2671"

1. At around 21:00 on July 27, 2014, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s restaurant business by getting customers entering the above shop, including, but not limited to, going to go off from the restaurant, going to the restaurant, and going to go to the restaurant chemical, as the victim attempted to go to go to the restaurant chemical, and want to go to go to the restaurant. The Defendant obstructed the victim’s restaurant business by getting the customers coming to the above shop, and having them go to go to the restaurant, by force of about 30 minutes.

2. The Defendant ordered the victim H to pay the amount, on the ground that the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the amount due to the lack of means of settlement such as cash or card at the above date and at the above place.

The Defendant received from the victim the 19,000 won of the market price of 19,00,000 from the tin, one madin, one son, and two madin.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

[2014 Highest 1552]

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Written statements of D;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Report on internal investigation (cases of telephone communications with victims);

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement of H;

1. Application of food details, on-site photographs statutes to the suspect;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act, Articles 314 (1) and 347 (1) of the Criminal Act (a point of interference with business), the choice of imprisonment for a crime

1. Article 37 of the Criminal Code among concurrent crimes.