A A shall be punished by a fine of two million won, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of five hundred thousand won.

The Defendants are subject to each fine.

On July 3, 2018, around 04:34, the Defendants: (a) around 04:34, at the E convenience store managed by the victim D in Ma, the service of the victim is not good; (b) junating the victim; (c) hinginginginging the victim with a bath and verbal abuse; (d) hinging the victim with a bath and verbal abuse; and (e) hinging the customers entering the above convenience store, the Defendants could have avoided disturbance for about ten minutes.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to interfere with the victim's convenience store business by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. D simplified statements;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes in Chapter 1 of the CDA of CCTV image data gap and photographs, and CCTV image data;

1. Article 314 (1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act concerning the relevant criminal facts, the choice of punishment, and the choice of fines;

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

1. In light of the circumstances and degree of interference with the sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of each of the provisional payment orders, there is no record of the same kind of crime, the reflectivity of the Defendants, and the circumstances in which the victim does not want the punishment by mutual consent with the victim, the punishment as ordered