A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Punishment of the crime

On June 4, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with labor due to interference with business in Busan District Court, and completed the execution of the sentence in Busan Detention House on September 23, 2015.

At around 18:00 on December 25, 2015, the Defendant found the victim D working in Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government around 18:0 and threatened customers, such as provokinging away customers, frighting their horses, or drinking their hairs, leaving the Defendant with a large large sound, frighting the Defendant, and frighting the Defendant’s chest with his own hand for about 15 minutes, leaving the Defendant’s chest with a large sound for about 15 minutes. After reporting to the police, the Defendant was reported to the police, and tried again to gather the wall outside of the area and to gather the customers who frighted with the sales.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the management of the victim's store by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statements from witnesses D and F;

1. Sales CCTV CDs;

1. A report on investigation (or a relative investigation by a police officer in mobilization);

1. Before the judgment: A criminal history inquiry, investigation report (report attached to the judgment), the result of the prisoner search [the "power of force" of the crime of interference with business shall not be charged with any force that may lead to pressure and confusion with the free will of people, tangible or intangible, and thus, violence and intimidation as well as pressure by social and political status and right rates, etc., and in reality, it does not require pressure by the victim's free will. However, it means a force sufficient to suppress the victim's free will in light of the offender's status, number of persons, surrounding circumstances, etc. Thus, the determination of whether it constitutes force should be made objectively by taking into account all the following circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7124, Jan. 30, 2009, etc.).