beta
Text
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
Reasons
1. On February 18, 2017, from around C, D, and from around 23:00 to around 23:15 of the same day, the Defendant performed drinking together within the “G” restaurant operated by the Victim F, the victim F, who was in Sin City E, with each other, performed drinking expenses. As a matter of calculating the drinking value between them, the Defendant performed a breath, which read “the drinking value in Sin City” as “the drinking value in C, D, and C, and C, and 23:15 of the same day, and led others to an uneasy and in a restaurant.
Accordingly, the defendant, C, and D interfered with the victim's restaurant business by force.
2. Among the facts charged in the instant case, there is a statement in F’s investigative agency and this Court as evidence that the Defendant conspireds with C and D.
However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and investigated by this court, the aforementioned evidence alone is only recognized as having served alcohol together with C, D in the cafeteria at the time, and the Defendant conspiredd to commit a crime interfering with business affairs by force with C, D, and force.
It is insufficient to recognize the F. (The part of the F. F’s land category of the Defendant as the person who is in a disturbance seems to be caused by confusion), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
① The F submitted a written statement to the investigative agency, that three male customers were floated in a dubial and large sense at the time, but in this court, two male customers were floated and floated, and two male customers were floated in a dub, and the remaining male customers were floated and floated on the float without participating in the vision. The Defendant was not a man who was floated and floated on the float, but a man was floated and floated on the float, and two male customers were floated at the float, not a man who floated and floated on the float at the float, and the written agreement (Evidence 81 page of evidence record) was not found by the Defendant.
was stated.
2. However, D shall be at the time of this Court.