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

1. On September 20, 2019, around 00:15, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s security service by force, such as finding out the victim C who is working in the Namwon-si B apartment guard room. From around 00:50 on the same day, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s security service by force.

2. On September 20, 2019, the Defendant violated the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, while under the influence of alcohol on September 20, 2019, 30 minutes of the complaint regarding the handling of the case described in paragraph (1), including, but not limited to, a very rough and disorderly speech and behavior, such as: “Around 01:21, the Defendant 1:30 minutes of the complaint regarding the handling of the case described in paragraph (1), and found the complaint in the direction of notification of the Southern Police Station located in 1812, Namwon-ro, 1812, for the victim.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Determination of the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion on the statement of the main prosecutor’s situation and investigation report (related to the suspect’s behavior after being transferred to the strong team of the Southern Police Station)

1. Summary of the assertion

A. In relation to Paragraph 1 of the holding, the Defendant did not have opened the door door of the guards’ room as indicated in the holding, and even if the Defendant had caused a little disturbance in the guards’ room, the victim took a lock and rest in the guards’ room at that time, and thus, the victim did not incur any obstacle to the business of the victim.

B. In relation to Paragraph 2 of the holding, although there was a statement, such as the statement in the judgment, by finding the Southern Police Station's notification tool, the Defendant did not reach a level of dissatisfy by very rough words and actions, and the Defendant merely raised a problem to police officers with respect to the handling of the case as stated in Paragraph 1 of the holding, it is a justifiable act that does not violate social rules.

2. Determination

A. Whether the crime of interference with business is established