Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one million won shall be the one day.

On November 5, 2019, the Defendant entered a “D” restaurant operated by the victim C(36 years of age) of the victim C (hereinafter “C”) at Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, and the first floor, and ordered drinking without ordering the drinking. However, the Defendant was unable to avoid disturbance for about 30 minutes by humping the glass cup and the contact with the Defendant on the table so as to damage the goods worth KRW 30,000 in total by hand, by huming the horses that the Defendant does not sell the drinking only from the victim.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of C’s written laws and regulations

1. Relevant provisions of Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act for criminal facts (a point of interference with business), Article 366 of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines (a point of interference with business), each of the crimes (the content of the crime of this case, the records of the defendant, and the fact that the crime is committed during the period of suspension of execution, etc.), but the responsibility of the crime is not absolutely weak in view of the following: (a) the victim is agreed upon with the victim after the conclusion of pleadings, and the victim does not want the punishment against the defendant; (b) the defendant is able not to repeat the crime by taking advantage of the fact that he/she is receiving the treatment of proof of alcohol in depth and receives the treatment of proof of alcohol; (c)

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act to increase concurrent crimes;

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;