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

On February 16, 2019, at around 21:45, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate management of the victim’s convenience store by force for about 10 minutes, on the grounds that, at the convenience point of the management of the victim D (20 years of age, leisure) in Gyeyang-gu Incheon, the Defendant did not calculate the charge, and that, at the time of the Defendant’s attempt to d (20 years of age, he did not go to the liquor tax first, when the victim tried to go to go to a coffee without calculating the charge, the Defendant stated that “in the calculation, the victim would go to the liquor tax first.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on site photographs and CCTV images;

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act lies in recognizing and opposing the instant crime.

The defendant seems to have reached a contingent crime under the influence of alcohol, and there is no record that the defendant was punished for the same crime.

The business of the convenience store in this case does not want to be punished against the defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant did not agree with the victim or have been able to receive from the victim.

The defendant's crime seems to have suffered mental shock.

In the above circumstances, the defendant's age, character and conduct, family relationship, family environment, motive and means of crime, and all the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case shall be determined as ordered by considering the following circumstances.