If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000.

1. On November 1, 2017, around 01:25, the Defendant interfered with his/her business affairs, in the “D” located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Jongno-gu, and in the influence of alcohol, in the victim E (W, 56 years of age) who is an employee of the said place under the influence of alcohol, “Ise why this weather year?”

The phrase “”, etc., booms the following customers, booms them, and booms them on the floor for about 30 minutes, such as placing them on the floor.

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

2. The Defendant violated the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act without justifiable reasons, even though he received food and alcoholic beverages equivalent to 44,00 won at the market price from the injured party, who is an employee of the above restaurant at the time of the day and around the day, on the same day as paragraph (1) of this Article.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of witness E;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. E statements;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing receipts and field photographs;

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (Interference with Business Affairs, Selection of Imprisonment), and Article 3 (1) 39 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act (Unauthorizedness, Selection of Fine) concerning the crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and Article 38 (1) 3 of the same Act concerning the aggravation of concurrent crimes;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 62 (1) and (2) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act;

1. Scope of a recommendation on the sentencing criteria for interference with the duties (the scope of a recommendation): The scope of punishment [the scope of a recommendation] on the grounds of the sentencing criteria for interference with the duties: The area of mitigation (one month to eight months) (the area of special mitigation). The area of mitigation is not subject to punishment (including efforts made to recover damage);

2. The Defendant, who was sentenced to punishment, shall choose to imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of interference with business, taking into account the fact that he/she again committed the instant crime even if he/she had been punished nine times or more as a crime of violence, interference with business, etc., and that he/she does not seem to seriously reflect his/her behavior.

However, the victim does not want to be punished against the defendant, and the value of food.