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

The Defendant is the owner of the C building in Ansan-si, and the victim D (V, 64 years old) is a person who operates a restaurant in the name of “E” in the above building.

On April 2, 2017, the Defendant, at around 10:00, prevented the victim’s restaurant business by force, by correcting the entrance door to the shop, which the victim possessed on the ground that he belonged to the payment date of the monthly rent, and preventing the customer from misleading.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Lease contract;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiries into facts (Saeong Saemaul Savings Depository);

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. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. Determination as to the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The defendant did not have the intention to obstruct the restaurant business.

2. Determination

A. In the establishment of a crime of interference with business, the result of the interference with business is not required to actually occur, but is sufficient to have the risk of causing the interference with business, and thus, the intention is not necessarily required to have the intention of the interference with business, and it is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of interference with business of another person due to one’s own act, and its recognition or prediction is sufficient, and its recognition or prediction is not definite, but it is so-called willful negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do4141, May 24, 2012). (b) According to evidence, the victim is recognized that he/she operated a restaurant business by April 1, 2017.

The defendant is a person who leased a restaurant to the owner of the above restaurant building to the victim, and is residing in the upper floor of the restaurant, so it seems that the victim was aware of the operation of the restaurant.

The defendant shall show a victim in a restaurant.