When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

On July 18, 2016, the Defendant requested D customer satisfaction center located in Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si, and 17:30 on the same day to refund Busan-si land at around 17:30.

However, as the employee of the customer satisfaction center removed the packing price of the product and explained that it is impossible to refund the product, the defendant continued to express his desire to the above employee, and committed noise due to the change of refund and so on, the defendant interfered with the customer satisfaction center's business and business affairs for about 30 minutes by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A written statement of the victim;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes for reporting internal accidents;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 314 of the same Act concerning the crime, the selection of fines;

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

1. On July 18, 2016, the summary of the facts charged against the part dismissing the prosecution under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order requested D Customer satisfaction Center located in Gwangju-si C on July 18, 2016, and around 17:30 of the same day, the Defendant requested the refund of Busan-si land at Mart around the same day.

However, the victim E (35) who is an employee of the customer satisfaction center, was unable to refund after removing the package of this product, and explained that it is impossible to refund the product, and it was difficult for the victim to avoid disturbance while booming the victim's desire. The victim abused the victim by booming the victim's clothes and booms on several occasions due to the loss of both hand and booms.

Judgment

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of assault is a crime falling under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 260(3) of the same Act.

In this regard, according to the written agreement of the victim E, the victim may recognize the fact that he expressed his wish not to punish the defendant on March 9, 2017, which was after the prosecution of this case. Thus, this part of the indictment is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.