Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On December 7, 2013, at around 23:20 on December 7, 2013, the Defendant damaged the property owned by the victim D, the main owner of the business, by cutting down two the table table, and the tamping tamps on the table, by cutting down the tangs and the tamps on the table, in the instant restaurant in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

2. In the above date, at the above place, the Defendant interfered with the business, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s restaurant operation by force for about 30 minutes, such as: (a) the alcohol disease on the table, which was on the table, cut off, protruding off, and the glass wave; and (b) the victim D and other customers, who are different from the victim D, made a defect in the paragraph, such as “the spacker will compensate the spacker to compensate the spacker’s end on the sprink; and (c) the sprinking of the spacked spacks, such as the spacking of the sprink, etc., by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Written statement of damage from DNA preparation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to on-site reports;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (Interference with Business, Selection of Fines) and Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (within the scope of the sum total of the amounts of the punishments determined by the crime of interference with business heavier than the punishment) among concurrent crimes;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order is that even though the defendant had been punished several times for the same crime, he/she again led to the crime of this case in the same kind, the form and time of interference with business, and the degree of interference with business due thereto, etc., which are disadvantageous to the defendant, considering the circumstances favorable to the defendant that the defendant led to the confession of the crime and reflects the mistake. It is so decided as per Disposition for