When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

1. Around June 29, 2019, the Defendant interfered with his business: (a) around June 29, 2019, the victim C in Gwangju-si had been an employee and her friend together with her friend with his her her friend and friend with his her friend with his her friend with his her friend with his her friend with his friend with his friend who died of his friend; (b) the Defendant got out of the friend with his friend with his friend with his friend with his friend; and (c) the Defendant had his friended with his friend with his friend with his friend with his friend with his friend with his friend with his friend with his friend with his friend; (d)

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the victim's operation of the restaurant by force.

2. The Defendant destroyed property damage, at a time and time as referred to in Paragraph 1, by destroying a coffee board installed on the floor of a restaurant catter, at a time and at a place where the disturbance was being disturbed, to cover approximately 200,000 won of repairing the cater board owned by the victim E.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement regarding C;

1. Evidence photographs;

1. Application of the Act and subordinate statutes to a investigative report (on-siteCCTV image analysis case);

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (a point of interference with business), Article 366 of the Criminal Act ( point of destruction and damage of property), and selection of fines for a 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. The defendant's reasons for sentencing under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order are disadvantageous circumstances that committed the crime of this case even though he/she is under probation due to violent crimes.

However, the agreement with the victim is reached, the degree of damage is not significant, and the deceased pro-friendly fessing led to the crime of this case in a contingent manner due to the decentralization for the work, and some of the circumstances should be considered in light of the circumstances and motive.