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

[Criminal’s History] From June 25, 2019 to May 15:50 of the same day, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s store business by force by avoiding disturbance, such as 'D' stores operated by the victim C (n, 51 years of age) located in Busan Jin-gu, Busan, for the reason that the Defendant prevented the victim’s air conditioners, which he operated. In addition, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s store business by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Entry in a complaint;

1. Statement in the police statement of E;

1. Before making entries in a report on investigation (to attachCCTV images) : The entries in the reference to criminal records and the application of the Acts and subordinate statutes contained in this Act by the defendant;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for the provisional payment order had been punished nine times, and in particular, the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of probation at a disadvantage to the Defendant is considered as extenuating circumstances. After the issuance of the summary order, the fact that the Defendant agreed with the victim after the issuance of the summary order is concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, there is room for dispute as to whether the victim has a right to prevent entrance, etc. In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, intelligence and environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., a fine of 3,00,000, which is prescribed by the summary order, is somewhat unreasonable.