Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, between March 6, 2016 and March 01:30 on the same day, within the “D convenience store for the management of the victim C in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government,” and on the ground that the above convenience store was not used for the Defendant’s purchase of goods prior to this time, the Defendant’s mental bombe, so-called the Defendant’s speech.

The ‘A' has been inside the convenience store by sound, and it interfered with the legitimate convenience store business of the victim by sobing the disturbance under the influence of alcohol, such as marching around the convenience store.

Summary of Evidence

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. Application of CCTV image CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 314 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

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

1. At the time of determining the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant, in a situation where the victim and the convenience store are located within the convenience store, committed the above act alone by the Defendant.

Even if such an act does not constitute a threat of force on the part of the victim, and the victim asserts that there was no interference with the business since it did not actually interfere with the business, such as the victim's normal operation of the convenience store calculation business.

However, the crime of interference with business is not a type, form, or intangible, and does not necessarily require the victim's freedom in reality to be controlled (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do10956, Oct. 27, 2016). In addition, the crime of interference with business does not require the result of interference with business as an abstract dangerous offender, but it is sufficient that there is a risk of interference with business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Do944, Jun. 28, 191). According to each of the above evidence, it is recognized that the defendant has committed a disturbance for more than 10 minutes, such as that he/she took part in the convenience store business within the convenience store and took part in sound within the convenience store.