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

[2016 Highest 2129] On June 2, 2016, the Defendant, at around 01:50 on June 2, 2016, requested the victim E, who is an employee, to provide tobacco at the DPC room located in Gwangju North-gu, Gwangju, but refused to provide customers with a large interest, and obstructed the victim’s PC room business by force by avoiding disturbance for about 40 minutes.

[2016 Highest 3918] On August 28, 2016, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s restaurant business by force of approximately one hour and 30 minutes for other customers, such as filling alcohol at the “H” restaurant operated by the victim G located in Seo-gu in Gwangju, Seo-gu, Gwangju, and taking a bath at a large interest.

[2016 Highest 5032] Around August 27, 2016, the Defendant, while returning home under the influence of alcohol, was unable for other customers to enter a restaurant on the ground that he was under the influence of alcohol in the “K” restaurant operated by the victim J of the victim J in Gwangju-gu on August 27, 2016.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's restaurant business by force.

Summary of Evidence

[2016 Highest 2129]

1. Statement of the defendant in the third public trial records;

1. E statements;

1. A criminal investigation report (2016 high group 3918);

1. Statement of the defendant in the third public trial records;

1. A written statement of G [2016 Height 5032];

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of J;

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 criminal liability for committing a crime committed by a criminal defendant who had several criminal records, such as the same criminal records as the sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, during the period of repeated crime, does not focus on the degree of interference with business.