Interference with Business

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

To order the defendant to be put on probation.

1. Interference with business;

On August 12, 2016, around 11:37, 2016, the Defendant expressed that employee F refuses to drink as her own, in E’s operation of the victim D in Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Defendant expressed the victim, F, etc., “I will not engage in her own funeral,” and tried to see the victim, F, etc., and caused his / her failure.

Around that time, even though the police officer called to the victim's report, the defendant found the above main points at around 11:55 on the same day, and became a police officer who called to the above main points. Around 12:16 on the same day, the defendant found the above main points, and became a police officer who called to the above main points, and was arrested in the act of committing a crime by the police officer who called to the above main points at around 13:05 on the same day.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the victim's main business by force.

2. Violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes Act;

On August 12, 2016, the Defendant reported the fact that the victim D (the age of 43) suffered damage from business interference, followed the investigation by the Seoul Mak Police Station on August 12, 2016, and told the victim to prepare a written agreement on August 24, 2016, and requested the victim to enter into the agreement on August 24, 2016, but was rejected, the Defendant expressed that “the victim is able to see that she should do so.” In his/her hand, he/she sawd the victim’s flaps.”

As a result, the defendant assaulted the victim for the purpose of retaliation against the victim's criminal report and the statement of damage in relation to the investigation of his criminal case.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. A table of 112 reported cases handling each;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 5-9(2) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of assault for the purpose of return), Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business and the choice of imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Articles 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act)

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Concurrent consideration of favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing below)

1. Probation;

Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Summary of the assertion

A. Before August 12, 2016, the Defendant was living together with a female living together and worked at the above main points, and dices only with the victim and F. As long as the Defendant did not take any bath or happiness, and no guest was found to find the main points at the time, the Defendant does not interfere with the victim’s main business.

B. The Defendant found the above main points on August 24, 2016. However, in the course of taking a ice image by hearing a bath from the victim and working at the above main points, it was impossible for the victim to take snow in the cell phone light in a timely fashion, and the Defendant did not take any retaliation against the victim to report to the police and make a statement in relation to the interference with the above business.

2. Whether the defendant's act constitutes obstruction to business;

In light of the following circumstances, which can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, i.e., ① the Defendant’s failure at the above main points under the influence of alcohol on August 12, 2016, are sufficiently recognized by the victim’s statement and each entry in the 112 Report Handling List; ② the Defendant’s aforementioned act led customers entering the above main points at the time of the above act (i.e., the 11th, and 29 pages), the fact that the Defendant interfered with the business of the victim’s main points by force. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion is rejected.

3. Whether any retaliation has been taken against the defendant.

As indicated in the facts of the crime in the judgment, the defendant demanded the victim to prepare a written agreement on the business obstruction of the victim on August 24, 2016, and immediately following the victim's refusal to do so. In light of the request for the preparation of the above written agreement, the refusal of such agreement, the time close to the above act of violence, and the circumstances where the above violence was committed, etc., the defendant's act of assault is aimed at retaliationing the victim's business obstruction by reporting the above business obstruction to the police and providing a written investigation report and making a statement of damage. It is difficult to view that the defendant's act was merely an act because the victim's abusive or cell phone light was bread. Accordingly, this part of the defendant's and the defense counsel's assertion is rejected.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of applicable sentences: Imprisonment for not less than six months to June 17; and

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) Basic crime - Interference with business

[Determination of Types] 1 (Interference with Business) interferences.

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Basic Field, Imprisonment with prison labor, six months, one year and six months;

(b) Concurrent crimes - Violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes Act;

[Determination of Punishment] Violence Crimes of No. 7 (Assault for Retaliatory Purpose)

【Special Exemplarys] Where the degree of assault is minor (requirements of mitigation)

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Reduction Area, Imprisonment with prison labor, April - One year and April

(c) Six months of imprisonment with prison labor for handling multiple crimes - Two years and two months (one year and six months of imprisonment with prison labor which is the upper limit of the scope of punishment for basic crimes plus eight months of imprisonment with prison labor which is one-half of the upper limit of the scope of punishment for concurrent crimes);

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months and 2 years of a stay of execution;

[Unfavorable circumstances] The crime of this case was committed by the Defendant at the main point operated by the Defendant, obstructing the business of the Defendant, interfering with the operation of the Defendant, and the victim reported this to the police, demanding the Defendant to prepare an agreement for the purpose of retaliation against it, and assaulting the refused victim. The Defendant committed the crime of this case even though he had been punished several times for the same kind of crime of obstruction of business and violence. The Defendant was punished by the Defendant’s severe punishment.

[Surged circumstances] The defendant has no power to be punished for the same crime.

In addition, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstances of each of the crimes of this case, circumstances after the crime, etc. shall be comprehensively considered and the punishment shall be determined as ordered by the order.

Judges Kim Gin-han

Judges fixed-type