If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

On July 20, 2017, around 23:20 on July 20, 2017, the Defendant set off a taxi driver C (34 years) in front of Geumcheon-gu Seoul, Geumcheon-gu Seoul, for the reason that the taxi driver C (34 years) was not operated by a father, the purpose of which the Defendant wants, and cut off the taxi in front of the taxi, and “violation of Parking Regulations”;

It interfered with the victim's taxi business by force for about 15 minutes by neglecting his/her behavior, such as taking a bath, "Chewing singke."

Summary of Evidence

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. A written statement of the victim;

1. Application of investigation reports (Analysis of video recording of CCTVs in the field of the case) Acts and subordinate statutes;

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. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant merely reported to the police by the victim's refusal to take passengers, and did not have any fact of blocking the victim's taxi operation in order to interfere with the victim's taxi operation, and did not take the victim's bath or pedal.

2. The judgment of this court is based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court: (a) as the defendant demanded the victim to go to the victim at the time of the instant case, the victim refused to go to the police on the ground that it was in motion; (b) as a result of the refusal to take passengers; (c) the defendant reported the victim to the police on the ground of the refusal to take passengers; and (d) in the process, the defendant parked the victim on the crosswalk on the crosswalk, such as the violation of parking regulations, the defendant continued to park the victim on the crosswalk; (c) the defendant prevented the victim from driving the vehicle on the middle; (d) the fact that the defendant prevented the victim from driving the vehicle by CCTV; and (e) the defendant resisted the victim's refusal to take passengers before the victim's vehicle even after the police officer was called.