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

On May 6, 2016, from around 19:30 to 21:00 on the same day, the Defendant visited the above service center to receive counseling on repair of the mobile phone from the injured party, and demanded the injured party to change the exchange to the mobile phone of the same flag type as his/her broken-down mobile phone after receiving counseling on repair of the mobile phone in order to repair his/her own mobile phone from around 19:30 to around 21:00 on the same day, the Defendant demanded the injured party to leave the service center as he/she continued to demand the exchange of the mobile phone even after the end of the business hours after the end of the business hours.

Nevertheless, the defendant, without good cause, refused to comply with the demand of the victim to leave for about one hour and 30 minutes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Investigation reports (the CCTV head of the E Services Center, the CCTV counter investigation, etc.), and the application of statutes for investigation reports (Attachment to CCTV of the E Services Center);

1. Article 319 (2) and Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Articles 319 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act that choose a penalty;

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

1. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the argument is true that the defendant's failure to comply with the request of the victim to leave the E Service Center, but this act is to hear the victim's resolution of acceptance of mobile phones with the consumer's right, and its illegality is dismissed as it constitutes a justifiable act.

2. The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence established earlier.

A. On May 6, 2016, at around 16:00, the Defendant asked the Defendant at the point of the E Service Center F where the victim works to resolve abnormal symptoms (a Kakao message, etc. was automatically read) of mobile phones, and the Defendant at issue with software.