[2017 Highest 861] The Defendant and C from January 21, 2017 to 01:00, at the F restaurant operated by the victim E ( South, 37 years old) located in Gwangju Mine-gu, drinking alcoholic beverages, C am in the table, and am in the same line, and am in the restaurant, they expressed a bath to customers in the restaurant, and the Defendant also expressed a amblance to the above victim, who is the Defendant’s request.

The defendant and C continue to be together with the defendant and C, who are in a large sense with the character of the article, and whether or not they are in a large manner.

It was difficult to avoid disturbance for a period of one hour, such as "I am a large interest," and making customers go in the restaurant.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to interfere with the victim's restaurant operation by force.

[2017 Highest 1854]

1. The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a vehicle with low-H level, in violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking) and the Road Traffic Act.

On May 1, 2017, the Defendant driven the said car under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.193% in blood around 20:05, and proceeded ahead of the movable apartment, which is 20-49 in the calculation of monthly grain in Gwangju Mine-gu, from the south middle school, to the south middle school at a speed of about 10km per hour from the south middle school.

At this point, there are two-way vehicles parked on both sides of the road, so the driver has a duty of care to safely drive the vehicle after securing a sufficient distance to avoid the collision with the parking vehicle by properly examining the traffic conditions on the front side and the right side.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected to do so and was parked on the right side of the defendant's course due to negligence, and the part of the fences in front of the left side of the JM5 passenger vehicle owned by the victim I, which was parked in the right side of the defendant's course, was shocked into the front side of the driver's vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant, due to the above occupational negligence, exchanged the Hague Lighting of the said JM5 car with the above JM5 car.