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

The Defendant, around 00:00 on April 16, 2017, while drinking alcohol at “G” main points operated by the Victim F, in Seo-gu Incheon E and 109, provided that the Defendant, under the influence of alcohol, drinks to customers on the next table without any justifiable reason.

In addition, it was difficult for the police officer who was dispatched after receiving a report to take care of the suspect, such as the defect in the toilet, the customer's desire to take care of the customer, the customer's desire to take care of the customer, and the victim was also able to avoid disturbance.

After the police officer was dismissed, the defendant 02:06 on the same day and 02:06 on the same day to drink together with other customers at the same place.

At the same time, it was difficult to avoid disturbance, such as forcing the customer to forced him to sit and standing on his side, and the victim asked the victim who did not drink any more.

In this case, when the police officer who was called upon receiving a report again required the defendant to return home, the defendant saw the defendant to the police officer while taking a bath. On the same day, the defendant continuously 03:04 on the same day, and 03:04 on the same day, dumped another customer's shoulder at the same place, dump, dumped the victim, and dumped the victim. The police officer who was called upon receiving the report at the above place was also able to avoid a disturbance while continuously taking a bath.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's main business by force over about four hours.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. A list of reported cases;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (suspects' angles);

1. Article 314 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

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

1. The Defendant, on the grounds of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, was sentenced to imprisonment for six months as a result of obstructing the performance of official duties, and served two years of suspended execution, again during the suspended period, and served again during the suspended period.

The defendant shall be three times as a crime of interference with business only in 2015.