Defendant shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one million won.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

From 03:07 to 03:55 on November 21, 2012, the Defendant did not pay a fare of KRW 12,000 on the ground that he was boarding a taxi in front of the Busan-gu Seoul apartment site in front of the East-gu Seoul Metropolitan City (U.S.), and that he did not pay a fare of KRW 12,00,00 on the ground that he was able to get more than his own idea, and that he would go back the distance for 50 minutes after he was seated in the steering line, and that he interfered with the normal business affairs of the private taxi owned by the victim, by force without getting out of the taxi.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Application of the police statement law to D;

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

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted as to the assertion of the defendant and defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order asserts that the act of the defendant does not constitute force, and even if such act constitutes force, the act of the defendant and defense counsel legitimately resisting the fact that the taxi rate was unfairly high.

The crime of interference with business under Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act is established when a person interferes with another’s business by deceptive means or by force. Here, “comfort force” includes not only assault and intimidation, but also social, economic, political and political status and pressure based on royalty, etc. as all tangible and intangible forces capable of suppressing and mixing a person’s free will. Even if such force does not necessarily be directly imposed on a person engaged in a business, a certain physical state is created and thereby makes another person unable or considerably difficult to perform his/her normal business (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do7943, May 24, 2012).