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

The defendant is a person who has no fixed occupation.

The Defendant, from around 19:10 on October 3, 2013 to 19:35 on the same day, was unable to engage in the business of convenience stores for about 25 minutes by force, such as “a year in which the bus stops were not tightly closed,” on the ground that the victim C (n. 31 years of age) was able to ask anywhere the bus stops were located within the E convenience store located in D when he was employed as an employee.”

Summary of Evidence

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Application of the police interrogation protocol to the defendant

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and his defense counsel's assertion of the provisional payment order, and the defendant and their defense counsel asserted that there was no disturbance by the defendant due to the victim's abusiveation as stated in the facts charged, etc. However, since the defendant had a large sound and abusive desire for the defendant, and thereby, the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion are credibility in the victim's testimony that they became an employee of the security company due to interference with convenience store business.