If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Around 10:00 on August 9, 2013, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s restaurant business by force, such as “F” operated by the victim D (ma, 24 years of age) located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government with E (ma, 56 years of age) on the ground that E had expressed a desire to the Defendant three days before E, and that E had expressed a desire to do so, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s restaurant business by force on the ground that: (a) the victim and the said E had expressed a desire to do so for about 30 minutes; (b) the victim and the said E; (c) the victim changed this fraud; (d) this bad year of age; and (e) the bad year of age; and (e) the victim’s talked; and (e) preventing two customers from entering.

On August 25, 2013, from around 18:30 to around 19:10 on August 25, 2013, the Defendant collectively assaulted the victim’s restaurant business on the ground that the victim’s mother thought that E, a mother of the victim, would take a restaurant customer, and that E, would not have good reputation and appraisal. On the other hand, the Defendant assaulted the victim’s restaurant business on the ground that the victim’s mother, he thought E, a restaurant customer, took the restaurant, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness D and E;

1. Each police statement concerning D;

1. Application of the respective Acts and subordinate statutes of D and E;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment.

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

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

1. It is so decided as per Disposition for not less than Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.