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

Where a defendant fails to pay a fine, one hundred thousand won shall be the day.

Punishment of the crime

On August 27, 2018, from around 23:35 to 23:55 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) at the main point of “C” operated by the Victim B; (b) without any particular reason, the Defendant D (A), an employee of the said main point, “Iskh, 21 years of age, Isnh, poper, Isn, Isnh, Isnh, Isnh, Isnh, Isnh, Isnh, Isnh at the face of the said victim; (c) caused a disturbance by avoiding the disturbance, such as by force of customers on the part of the victim B, who were in the said main point, and by destroying the monitor side, Isnh, and damaged the victim B’s property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Voluntary report;

1. A investigative report (to attachCCTV photographs and video images);

1. 12 reported case handling table, respectively;

1. Damage photographs;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes concerning CCTV closure photographs;

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 316 of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business, the choice of fines) concerning the crime, the choice of punishment, and Article 366 of the Criminal Act;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 (1) 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, the Defendant did not know even during the period of repeated crime, and reached each of the crimes in this case.

Although criminal punishment has been imposed several times for violent crimes, it failed to improve character and behavior and re-offending.

In the case of the crime of interference with business, the nature and degree of the crime is not good, and there is a high possibility of criticism.

Considering the above unfavorable circumstances, the defendant should be punished with severe punishment, but the victim expressed his/her intention not to be punished against the defendant by mutual consent with the victim D of the crime interfering with business, and the victim was able to take the action against the defendant by mutual consent with the victim B of the crime of destroying and damaging property during the trial of this case.