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

The defendant was an employee in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, operated by the victim C.

Defendant 1 worked at the above E 15:00 and worked at the kitchen by 01:00 of the following day.

Although the Defendant, from around February 2015, from around April 7, 2015 to around April 7, 2015, had to open a place of business to sell food and drink after opening the place of business at around 15:0, the Defendant interfered with the instant E business by deceptive means, such as failing to receive delivery orders, by posting the paper, stating the “Pre-Preparation”, “business from 18:0,” and “business from 18:0,” on the entrance door and the front stairs of the place of business, so that customers who find the place of business are not allowed to enter the door. If the delivery order phone is 20 to 30 minutes, the Defendant interfered with the instant E business by means of a deceptive scheme, such as having taken one hour or two hours, or without receiving delivery orders by guiding other points to place an order.

Summary of Evidence

1. The statement of the witness C and F in the third public trial protocol, the statement of the witness G in the fourth public trial protocol (which is specific, consistent with its contents, and is not likely to be recorded in a different manner; therefore, credibility exists). The application of each statute of H, I, and J to each of the three public trial records

1. Article 314 of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Articles 314 (1) and 313 of the Criminal Act (a comprehensive selection of fines);

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

1. It is so decided as per Disposition on the grounds of Article 334(1) or more of the Criminal Procedure Act.