On October 5, 2017, at the D convenience store located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government around 12:40 on October 5, 2017, the Defendant: (a) was unable to enter the convenience store by putting alcohol in front of the entrance of the convenience store without any justifiable reason after drinking alcohol at the convenience store; and (b) continuously putting the victim E (V, 28 years of age) who is an employee who manages the said convenience store, and putting him/her a walk over one hour, such as taking a bath, leaving him/her off, etc.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's convenience store management by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement protocol by the police for E;

1. A written statement;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to take on-site photographs, CCTV images of a DNA convenience store, and to photograph images taken by police officers on the spot;

1. Relevant provisions of the law regarding criminal facts, Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act regarding the selection of punishment, reasons [the scope of recommended punishment] for sentencing of imprisonment [the scope of business] [the grounds for sentencing of punishment of types 1 (Interference with business] [the person subject to special mitigation] [including efforts to recover from damage] and the defendant may have a criminal conviction of the same kind] [the decision of sentence], even if the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor due to interference with business and even during the suspension period of execution, he/she committed the crime as long as he/she had been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor, and there is no long time to commit the crime. In light of the circumstances leading to interference with business, how the crime was committed, how the crime was committed, and the degree of damage, it is inevitable to sentence sentence, which is disadvantageously unfavorable.

However, the defendant's mistake is divided, the victim does not want punishment, and the other factors of sentencing, such as the age, sex, environment, etc. of the defendant, shall be considered equally, and the punishment shall be determined as ordered.

The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Defendant was in a state of mental or physical loss or mental weakness under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant case.

According to the records, the defendant is in this case.