beta
Text
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.
Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The Defendant was entrusted with the operation of the “C Sports Center” in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government apartment complex, and the victim D (the age of 46) operated an indoor golf course in the name of “I” at the above sports center. The Defendant and the victim were in the process of civil litigation as a matter of the above I contract, and the Defendant and the victim claimed a summary order on suspicion of assaulting the victim.
On October 24, 2017, the Defendant is prohibited from entering the sports center without leaving the name and contact information of a person who is not a member.
The phrase “a person demanding identification card,” and demanding other customers L to “a person who is a party to file a complaint with one another,” and thus, the victim was punished by a vagabonds, and the victim did not take the Defendant’s appearance by using a cellular phone and did not return the defective cell phone, thereby obstructing the victim’s golf course operation for about 30 minutes by force.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Each legal statement of witness D, J, K, M and L;
1. Application of on-site photographs and CCTV video CD-related 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. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order (the defendant and his/her defense counsel shall operate the I screen of D, one of the programs under the C Sports Center operated by the defendant, in the course of performing the duties of the defendant;
Although M and D alleged to the effect that it does not constitute “other person’s business” as referred to in the crime of interference with business, M and D concluded a contract with the Defendant as an independent business entity, not with the Defendant’s employee, by receiving payment from the Defendant.