Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On April 30, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment by the Seoul High Court for a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, etc., and the said judgment was finalized on May 8, 2015, and on April 29, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for an honorary injury, etc. in the Yongsan District Court’s High Court’s High Court’s High Court’s High Court’s High Court’s High Court’s High Court’

The defendant and the victim B are in the dong line relationship, and the victim is a person who operates the D-type Party in the Pacific City.

On September 15, 2014, the Defendant found the victim’s restaurant around September 15:16, 2014, and raised a complaint against the ordinary victim’s disregarding himself/herself, and against the victim’s complaint, the Defendant “Iskin, n'e, n't.e., the victim.

The term "inducing a large lux, etc., two chemical parts in the restaurant ma while gathering them together, putting them on the floor, breaking them, allowing customers who were in the restaurant to voluntarily leave the restaurant, etc., thereby obstructing the victim's legitimate restaurant operation for about 30 minutes by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness B;

1. Statement made by the police against B;

1. On-site photographs;

1. A previous conviction: A reply to inquiry such as criminal history, a copy of the investigation report (related to a final and conclusive judgment), and a copy of the judgment [the witness B made a statement consistent with the investigation agency and the facts charged in this court, and thus, the above statement is credibility.

Therefore, according to the above statements with credibility, the facts charged can be fully acknowledged.

Meanwhile, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the facts charged in the instant case are identical with the facts charged in relation to the property damage of the case for which the judgment of conviction became final and conclusive (the High Court 2015 High Court 2015 High Court 2015 High Court 2015 High Court 2017, Supreme Court 2015Do20217).

However, the identity of facts charged or facts charged should be determined in consideration of the normative elements as well as the act of the defendant and its social factual relationship based on the legal function of the identity of facts (Supreme Court Decision 2010. 201. 201.).