Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

On February 25, 2016, from around 19:00 to 19:15 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) at the “E restaurant operated by the victim D located in the Heung-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu; (b) at the “E restaurant operated by the victim D; (c) while drinking alcohol together with F, the Defendant took a bath while drinking alcohol; and (d) at the same time, the F attempted to make the table blick up on the restaurant floor; and (c) in the process, the Defendant laid the blick on the restaurant floor; and (d) the Defendant was unable to avoid disturbance, such as taking the blick on the restaurant floor, and taking the victim’s bath.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's restaurant business by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Reports on internal investigation (to listen to telephone statements in response to non-Appearance of attendance of a victim);

1. Arrest report of an interference with business affairs;

1. Receipts:

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 314 (Selection of Penalty) of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act obstructs the business of the restaurant by the defendant. Such an act is the circumstances unfavorable to the defendant, that the defendant is led to the confession of the crime of this case and reflects against the defendant, and that there is no particular criminal offense other than once a fine, in favor of the defendant.

In addition to the above circumstances, all the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case shall be determined as per the disposition.