Defendant

A A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1.5 million, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

1. On April 2, 2017, the Defendants, as the married couple, expressed that they were the victim D (the age of 45) operated by the Defendant A as an employee for 3 days from the “F” operated by the Defendant D (the age of 45) in Ansan-gu, Ansan-si on April 15, 2017 as the husband’s death, and the victim took an examination against the Defendant A, and the Defendant A expressed a voice that “the victim would have to buy the malb in death, damage, and dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong

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

2. Defendant A’s sole crime committed the crime committed by Defendant A, in the same date, time, and place as the above paragraph 1, and during the process of avoiding disturbance, the victim D’s shoulder was tightly sealed twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to CDs (on-site CCTV images);

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and subparagraph A of the option of punishment for the crime: Articles 314(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of violence) and Article 260(1) (the point of violence) of the Criminal Act, and Article 314(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (the choice of penalty)

1. A aggravated defendant for concurrent crimes: The former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants to be detained in the workhouse: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendants and the defense counsel asserted that the obstruction of duties as stated in the judgment in Articles 32(1)3 and 25(3)3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuits, etc. of the Request for Compensation Orders, in relation to the assertion of justifiable acts by the Defendants and the defense counsel, should be justified. However, the Defendants’ and the defense counsel asserted that the obstruction of duties as stated in the judgment in Article 32(1)3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of