2. Where the defendant does not pay the above fine. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 16090, Jan. 1

On September 12, 2013, from around 04:40 to around 05:10, the Defendant: (a) took a D-business taxi operated by the victim C in front of the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Seoul) from around 04:40 to around 05:10, and arrived at the destination; (b) took a bath for the reason that 4,500 won of the taxi rate was too much high; (c) opened the first door of the taxi and opened one door and prevented the victim from departing from the taxi by force; and (d) obstructed the victim’s taxi business by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a written statement (C), taxi receipt, recording recording (control police officers);

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 57 of the Criminal Act including days of pre-trial detention;

1. The defendant's defense counsel and reasons for sentencing under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. The defendant's defense counsel's assertion that the defendant was in a state of mental disorder under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime. However, according to the records, although the defendant was aware that he had drank several alcohol at the time of committing the crime of this case, it cannot be said that the defendant had lost or weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

The above defense counsel's mental and physical disability is not accepted.

2. The fact that the reason for sentencing was not recovered but the victim did not want to punish the defendant, and the fact that the crime was committed while being committed is favorable to the defendant.

However, despite the detention of the police officer who was called out of the wind that the defendant argued that the taxi fee (the defendant should be 3,000 won, but 4,500 won has been brought to the defendant), the crime of this case is very poor in the nature of the crime as long as the defendant is unable to move the bridge to the head of the taxi and take the bridge out of the taxi and prevent the victim from operating the taxi.