Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

Where a defendant fails to pay a fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

On September 22, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 21:50, operated by the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Victim C (Y, 53 years of age) (hereinafter “C”) and the Defendant was demanded by the victim to request for the payment of KRW 10,000 to the singing room for about one hour without using singing while drunking, while the Defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions, by drinking, and without using singing; and (b) the Defendant was demanded by the victim to bring about a demand for the payment of KRW 10,00 to the singing room; and (c) the victim was made to bring about the demand by the victim; and (d) at the time of drinking, the Defendant carried two favorable parts of the cooling house, which were on the singing box, and prevented customers from entering the singing room by gathering one of the card terminal devices, and entering the singing room by accompanying it.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the victim's property and interfered with the victim's singing 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 photographs of damaged areas;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of ordinary concurrent crimes (a punishment provided for in the provisions on the crime of interference with business heavier than each crime)

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Article 10 (2) and Article 55 (1) 6 of the Criminal Act for mitigation of mental disorders;

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

1. The sentencing ground of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for sentencing order of provisional payment order repeats the crime similar to the crime of this case, and in particular, it is impossible to accept that the defendant again commits the crime of this case during the suspended execution period. However, the defendant's mistake is contrary to the recognition of the defendant's mistake, and the defendant's losses are also injured in the course of the crime, and it seems that the defendant did not properly control his own appraisal and judgment, and that the defendant does not want the defendant's punishment by agreement with the victim.