Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On June 26, 2019, at around 19:06, the Defendant sought “D” store operated by the victim C (the age of 40) in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju, and asserted that the license was revoked by reporting himself as a drinking driving in the past five months, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s work by force by force by preventing the Defendant from running a disturbance for about eight minutes, such as “the license was revoked in the width string. kh kh. k. k. k. k. k. k. k. k. k. k. k.).”

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

1. C’s legal statement (the statement of C, the injured party, is consistent from the investigative agency to the court, and credibility exists in conformity with other evidence, such as CCTV images, etc.);

1. Application of CCTV Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to criminal facts and Article 314(1) of the option of punishment [the defendant asserts that the act of the defendant does not constitute force of the defendant. However, power, which is the means of interference with business, refers to all the forces capable of suppressing and mixing the free will of the person. The defendant's act of finding a restaurant operated by the victim and carrying out an act of throwing a mountain at the bottom of the restaurant and throwing it down on the floor of the restaurant, constitutes a threat of force that may threaten the victim's free will to interfere with the operation of the restaurant by suppressing the victim's will to prevent the risk of interference with the operation of the restaurant (the actual process), and the victim reported to the police in order to rescue the situation.

A. We do not accept the above Defendant’s and his defense counsel’s assertion.

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The degree of the defendant's power exercised on the grounds of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act does not exceed a relatively much, and the victim's economic effect is the victim.