A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months, by a fine of 2,00,000 won.

Defendant

B The above fine.

At around 22:39 on November 21, 2018, the Defendants heard “E” restaurant operated by the victim D, which is located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, and talked with other daily behaviors that the victim could not order food that he wants from the victim during drinking, and Defendant B expressed the victim the victim’s desire to “I am you am I am I am “I am I am I am” by entering the victim’s main room with the victim, and Defendant A expressed the victim “I am I am I am I am,” and Defendant A expressed the victim’s desire to “I am I am I am, I am am, I am am on the back, I am am am on the back, I am am on the back, I am am am on the back of 30 minutes, and am you am at the restaurant, and prevented customers from entering the restaurant.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to interfere with the victim's restaurant business by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. Each statement of D and F;

1. A report on investigation (F telephone call) and a report on investigation (G relative investigation of a shote);

1. Business registration certificate;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on screen pictures, site photographs, and CCTV photographs;

1. Defendants of relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts: Articles 314(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act

1. Defendant A’s option of punishment shall be punished by imprisonment, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine.

1. Defendant A at a workhouse: Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant B: Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant B: The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that Defendant A [the scope of recommendations] [the basic area of interference with business]; the basic area of interference with business; imprisonment for six months to one year [the sentence]; the crime of this case is not good that Defendant B interfered with restaurant business by avoiding the disturbance of the Defendant who had the same criminal records and the same criminal records; and that Defendant’s business interfered with the restaurant business by avoiding the disturbance of the Defendant. < Amended by Act No. 13334, May 2015>