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

1. On September 17, 2018, the Defendant interfered with his duties: (a) around 17:45, the Defendant: (b) within the “D” restaurant operated by the business owner, who is the victim in the Manyang-si B (hereinafter referred to as “D”); (c) lost the wall at the preceding restaurant; (d) and (e) lost the wall at the front restaurant; and (e) interfered with the Defendant’s operation of the restaurant for about 10 minutes by force.

2. The Defendant committed assault, at the time and place set forth in the above Paragraph 1, such as the defect in which the main owner of the business requested the continued delivery of clothes, but he failed to do so, and the victim’s quizzles the body.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness C and E;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing victim part photographs;

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of a fine for the crime, the choice of a penalty, and the selection of a fine for the crime;

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

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

1. 집행유예 형법 제62조 제1항 [피고인은 지갑을 잃어버린 곳에 가서 CCTV를 보여달라고 한 것이 업무방해라고 할 수 없고, 피해자가 밖으로 잡아끌기에 방어적으로 팔을 뿌리친 것이 폭행이라고 할 수 없다고 주장한다. 살피건대, 피고인이 단순히 CCTV를 보여달라고 요청한 것에 그치지 아니하고 큰 소리로 CCTV를 가져오라고 하여 손님들이 불편을 느끼게 하였는바 이는 업무방해에 해당한다. 또한 피해자의 정당한 퇴거 요청에 불응하여 피해자가 피고인을 밖으로 나가도록 잡아끌자 피해자의 팔을 할퀸 것 역시 폭행에 해당한다. 따라서 피고인의 주장은 받아들이지 아니한다.] 양형이유 피고인이 편집조현병을 앓고 있고 지능과 충돌조절능력이 낮아 쉽게 공격적인 반응을 보이는...