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

1. On August 4, 2017, around 13:00, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s clothes sales business by force by avoiding disturbance for about 10 minutes, including: (a) the victim D (n, 40 years of age) who had been on the first floor of the building C in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu; (b) the request was made to refund clothes purchased on the preceding day in the “E” clothes store; (c) the refusal was made; and (d) the victim’s parts, such as the victim, etc., were laid in the calculation unit; and (d) the victim’s parts were three times in his/her hands.

2. Around 13:00 on August 4, 2017, the Defendant assaulted the part of the victim, etc. on three occasions on the floor of hand, on the ground that the victim D (Woo, 40 years old) on the first floor of the north-gu building C (E) refuses to refund at the clothing store operated by E, “E”.

Summary of Evidence

1. Entry of a defendant in part in the protocol of second public trial;

1. Determination as to the defendant and defense counsel's assertion of each legal statement of witness D, F and G

1. The main point of the argument was that the victim's clothes store had come to a diving between the defendant and the victim due to the refund problem, and there was no intention to obstruct the defendant's business.

2. The judgment of this court is based on each evidence duly adopted and investigated as follows: (i) the defendant demanded refund at the victim's store in which the defendant had been running a garment sales business, and the defendant went to each other while making a request for refund; (ii) the victim's garment store was an open space in the first floor in large shopping mall, and thus a disturbance occurs in some stores, the customers in neighboring stores or shopping mall can immediately see or hear it; and (iii) the defendant and the victim were in the victim's store; (iv) the defendant's exercise of physical force against the victim's body while running a garment sales business constitutes interference with his/her business; and (iv) the defendant's use of physical force constitutes interference with his/her business.