Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. Around December 17, 2015, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s main business by force by forcing the victim’s users who had entered the said main points to enter the victim’s main points by drinking alcohol while drinking alcohol at the victim C’s main points of operation in Yangju City, and by blocking them from entering the victim’s main points of operation.

2. The Defendant damaged property at the above time and place, as seen above, destroyed the victim’s holding market price, which was located at the main place while avoiding the disturbance, and then damaged its utility by breaking up a string to the table.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant’s legal statement

1. A C statement;

1. Each internal investigation report and field photo (the Defendant asserts to the effect that he was in a state of mental disorder by drinking at the time of committing the instant crime.

According to the records, even though the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, in light of the content of the crime of this case, the attitude of the defendant, the circumstances before and after the crime of this case, etc., it is not recognized that the defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business), Article 366 of the Criminal Act (the point of destruction of property), and the selection of fines for each crime;

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

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (hereinafter “Criminal Procedure Act”) committed the instant crime even if the Defendant had the same record of crime several times, and even if he was punished by a fine as the same crime during the period of repeated crime, he committed the instant crime.

However, the defendant's mistake is divided in depth, and the degree of interference with business and damage to property seems to be relatively minor, and it is agreed with the victim.