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

The Defendant, along with the wife B, notified the victim D, who had been operating the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government store under the name of the lessee on three occasions the previous leased and notified the victim D of the fact that he had been operating the store by mail verifying the contents, but, as the victim did not comply with this, the Defendant solicited the victim E, who was the branch, to set up a street in front of the above store and to have him operate the business.

From May 1, 2017 to November 28, 2017, the Defendant interfered with the miscellaneous sales business of the victimized person by force by having the above E prepare for street stores and goods sold in front of the F shop operated by the said C victim D, and by having the E install a board and sell electronic equipment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D and G;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Each police statement made to D, G, and E;

1. Complaint;

1. A real estate lease agreement;

1. Content certification, notification letter, each store photographing photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as each receipt, a certificate verifying transaction details, a lease-based calendar, and a business registration certificate (H);

1. Relevant Article 314 of the Criminal Act and Articles 314 (1) and 30 of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment for a crime;

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

3. Judgment on the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (the grounds for conviction) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the argument is that the Defendant and B established and operated a coordinate in order to exercise the right as the lessee of the store as indicated in the judgment (hereinafter “instant store”). However, there was no difficulty in the victim’s access to the store. The victim did not reach the level sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will, as the victim did not appear in the instant store after May 1, 2017, or demanded the Defendant to put the coordinate. Thus, the Defendant’s act constitutes a crime of interference with business.