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

The Defendant served in the parking lot called “C” operated by pro-Japanese.

On March 4, 2017, the Defendant was found to demand a restaurant customer to pay parking fees using a restaurant run by the victim F (23 tax) in the “E” house located in the city of the Government around 15:07.

Although the Defendant received a request from the injured party to leave a restaurant, it would interfere with business, and the Defendant reported the victim to the police by obstructing the business operation, it was 10 minutes of pulse, such as drinking culture, etc., and obstructed the victim’s business operation, on the ground that the victim reported the victim to the police by obstructing the business operation.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiries, such as criminal history;

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

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

1. The judgment on the key issue of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act in the order of provisional payment is that the defendant and his defense counsel had no intention to obstruct the business of the victim since the victim had expressed his desire first to do so.

The argument is asserted.

On the other hand, in the formation of a crime of interference with business, the result of the interference with business should not be actually caused, but it is sufficient to cause the risk of the interference with business (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do3044, Apr. 10, 1992, etc.). Thus, the intention does not necessarily require the intention of the interference with business purpose or planned interference with business, but it is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of the interference with business of others due to one's own act, and its recognition or prediction is not only final but also conclusive (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do4141, May 24, 2012). This court has duly adopted and investigated it.