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

1. On March 10, 2017, the Defendant obtained pecuniary benefits equivalent to the same amount as the Defendant did not order the Kimchi Ba and pay the price, despite the absence of the intent or ability to pay food values to the victim E, an employee of the place, at D-type store located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Gangseo-gu, Seoul.

2. The Defendant interfered with the business of the victim by force between approximately 30 minutes, such as: (a) the victim, who was demanded by the victim to pay the food value at the above time and place; (b) the victim, who was able to take a bath in a large voice; and (c) the customer, who was able to feel uneasiness, was unable to enter the restaurant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on food value receipts;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) and Article 315 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Articles 347 (1) and 315 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and Article 38 (1) 2 of the same Act concerning the aggravation of concurrent crimes;

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

1. Circumstances unfavorable to the reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order: The punishment as ordered shall be determined by taking into account the fact that there was a history of having been punished several times for violent crimes, the circumstances favorable to the fact that the instant crime was committed again during the repeated crime period: the degree of damage is not much severe, the fact that the victim has not reached an agreement with the victim, and other factors of sentencing indicated in the records, such as the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, etc.