Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

From February 26, 2020 to December 16, 2020 to 17:30, the Defendant: (a) on the “D restaurant” operated by the victim C in Yangsan-si B market, the Defendant: (b) on the ground that the victim previously reported the Defendant, who was a pedal in the said restaurant, to the police, was seated on the said restaurant, and (c) on the cover of the seat of the said restaurant, and (d) on the cover of “the family members, who died, and who died of Dricker,” expressed the desire of “the family members, who died, died of Dricker, and died of Dricker”; and (c) on the part of other customers, the Defendant dumped another customer at the said restaurant for about 1 hour and 30 minutes, such as drinking.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's restaurant business by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (to hear statements by a complainant C call);

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

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

1. On the grounds of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the sentence as ordered shall be determined by taking into account all the circumstances shown in the pleadings of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, along with the sentencing circumstances of the Defendant.

D. Unfavorable circumstances: The defendant committed the crime of interference with business without being aware of the fact that he had been subject to summary trial by leaving the facilities in the restaurant for criminal facts as stated in the judgment even before, and without being aware of the fact that he had been subject to summary trial, and the crime of interference with business was committed in light of the process, motive, contents and methods of the crime, business interference time, etc., and the possibility of criticism is very heavy: The defendant's crime is recognized and wrong; the victim expressed his intention not to punish the defendant; the victim did not have any criminal power to punish the defendant for the same crime; and the defendant exceeded the fine.