Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

On October 9, 2014, from around 00:37 to 01:17 of the same day, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s taxi business by force by force by demanding continuous operation without any justifiable reason while requesting a passenger to take advantage of seat, etc. while continuing operation without paying the fee, after completing the victim’s D(72 years of age)’s use of a taxi.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of the police interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on field guidance;

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

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

1. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of each of the above determination as to the criminal intent of interference with business under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and whether the defendant was a legitimate act, the defendant was removed from the vehicle operated by the victim under 72 years of age after having arrived at the final destination after having received the seat, etc., the victim's vehicle was a business taxi, the victim's vehicle was a victim, even if the victim made a somewhat insulting speech to the defendant, that the defendant was going against the victim. This case was generated in the course of demanding additional operation after having arrived at the first destination without disclosing its final destination. It is reasonable to view that the defendant was aware that there was a risk of interference with business due to his own act, even if the defendant had the purpose of receiving death from the victim at the time of this case, and it is difficult to view that the defendant's act constitutes a legitimate act.