1. Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000;

2. Where the defendant does not pay the above fine.

Punishment of the crime

1. On June 7, 2015, the Defendant who damaged property: (a) at the main point of “E” operated by the victim D in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul; (b) calculated the amount of drinking alcohol and drinking alcohol; (c) as the husband of the said D, F and Si expenses were the husband of the said D, thereby damaging the market price of the said D’s influent property.

2. The Defendant, at the time and place specified in the preceding paragraph, interfered with the victim’s operation of the restaurant by force by preventing customers from doing business, such as leaving the cafeterias by breaking the said cafeterias as above.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of a defendant: The fact that he/she inflicts damage on his/her table and chairs by drinking alcohol at the time and place specified in the decision of the defendant and drinking alcohol with F and vision, etc.;

1. Partial statement of the witness F;

1. A certificate of business report;

1. Application of statutes on field photographs;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the selection of fines for a crime;

2. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the said Act (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes against a person who interferes with heavier business affairs).

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

4. 가납명령 형사 소송법 제 334조 제 1 항 양형의 이유 이 사건 약식명령은 현장 사진에 나타난 파손된 물품 대부분을 피고인이 손괴하였음을 전제로 벌금액을 정한 것으로 보이나, 실제로는 F이 파손한 부분도 다수 있는 것으로 보이는 점( 사건 당시부터 피고인은 자신이 손괴한 부분만 신고 하여 처벌을 받겠다면서 F에게 신고를 하라고 하였고, F은 경찰 신고를 거부하는 상황이었으며, F은 당시 출동한 서울 서대문 경찰서 연희 파출소 소속 경찰관들에게 자신이 현장 일부를 손괴하였음을 인정하였던 사실, F은 ‘ 피고인으로부터 사과를 받기 전 까지는 꼼작도 안 하겠다’ 면서 의자와 이불까지...