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

"2017 Highest 2395"

1. On July 7, 2017, at around 20:00, the Defendant and B acted as if they had an ordinary drinking value even if they did not have an intent or ability to pay the drinking value, and ordered an alcoholic beverage and an alcoholic beverage, and were provided with alcohol and an alcoholic beverage equivalent to KRW 85,000 from the place of the damage.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim in collusion with B.

2. The Defendant and B had difficulty in performing their duties were unable to avoid disturbance for about 30 minutes by exercising violence, such as: (a) the calculation of the drinking value with each other’s body fighting; (b) the other customers who had been at the same time and at the same time and place; and (c) the other customers who have taken a look at and take a bath.

Accordingly, the defendant conspired with B to interfere with the victim's business by force.

Summary of Evidence

[2017 Highest 2395]

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. E statements;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the investigation report (verification of CCTV on-site);

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act, Articles 314(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act, Articles 314(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of fines for the crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act with respect to the order of provisional payment is that the defendant interfered with the victim's oral business by force after the defendant was in the absence of command, and the nature of the crime is not good.

However, the defendant recognizes his mistake and is against his will.

The crime of this case seems to have been committed relatively contingent while under the influence of alcohol.

It was agreed that the victim would pay the amount of damage caused by fraud.

There is no person suffering from mental disease and there is no person subject to criminal punishment after 1995.

In addition, the defendant's age, sex, environment, circumstances of the crime, and circumstances after the crime are judged.