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

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

Punishment of the crime

피고인은 2017. 10. 24. 06:00 경부터 같은 날 09:00 경까지 사이에 인천 중구 B 시장에 있는 피해자 C이 운영하는 ‘D 식당 ’에서 술에 취한 상태로 ‘ 비빔밥이 짜다.

Around three hours, customers who want to enter the said restaurant by avoiding disturbance, such as referring to a chrop, referring to a chrop Nung., referring to a chrop bbb,” referring to “Crop bb.” and referring to a crop., thereby interfering with the victim’s restaurant business for approximately three hours.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. C’s statement;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant Article 314 of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the selection of fines for the crime (the following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act;

1. Scope of punishment: At least 50,000 won, but not exceeding 15 million won;

2. The sentencing criteria shall not apply since the decision of sentencing was made: The defendant, who is a fine of three million won, does not know well even though he is in the period of suspension of execution due to the same kind of crime, and the nature of the crime is not good.

However, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant committed the instant crime, which recognized the instant crime, reflects his mistake in depth, did not exercise the physical force of the victim during the instant crime, and that the Defendant visited the restaurant operated by the injured person while drinking alcohol to a certain extent. However, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant’s act of drinking alcohol at the restaurant led to the instant crime, which led to the Defendant’s occurrence of a part of the instant crime prior to the instant crime, and that the Defendant agreed with the victim, while the Defendant currently under the period of probation, was in force, and the Defendant’s protection and observation was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Protection Observation Office.