To the extent that the identity of the facts charged is recognized and it does not disadvantage the defendant's right of defense, the facts charged are partially revised and recognized.

The defendant was friendly with C, who was the victim B's son, and was damaged by C in around 2017, but C was not subject to death and continued to evade telephone.

At around 18:00 on April 29, 2019, the Defendant sought a “E” clothes store operated by the victim in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D on the ground that the victim’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness B and F;

1. The police statement concerning B;

1. A written statement;

1. Determination as to the defendant's assertion of suspect photograph within the clothing store

1. The Defendant alleged that he did not obstruct the operation of the victim’s clothes store by committing the act identical to the facts charged, and at the time, the Defendant did not have any intention to obstruct the business.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence adopted and examined by this Court: (i) the victim made a concrete and consistent statement from the investigative agency to the investigation agency about the details and contents of the damage, such as the victim’s statement that the defendant had committed the same act as the facts charged, etc., and it is difficult to view that there is an unreasonable or contradictory part in the victim’s statement; and (ii) the F’s investigative agency and the victim’s statement.