Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal records] On April 13, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor and two years of suspended execution by obstructing business operations at the Jeju District Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on October 11, 2017.

[2] On September 17, 2017, at around 00:03, the Defendant: (a) under the influence of alcohol at the D convenience store located in Seopopo-si, Seopopo-si; (b) changed the 900 won of the market price to the victim E ( South Korea, 21 years of age) who is an employee of the above convenience store; and (c) changed the cream for sale to the 300 won; and (d) interfere with the victim’s convenience store management by force for about 15 minutes, such as by putting the 15 minutes of the 1,00 won of the market price.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. E statements;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Photographs related to CCTV search;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, (A) and Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (the same type of punishment as the suspect);

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. After Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 39 (1) of the same Act:

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

1. The grounds for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for the provisional payment order shall be determined as follows in consideration of the following circumstances.

The circumstances at a disadvantage: not only have the record of being sentenced to a fine due to interference with business on February 25, 2016, but also the circumstances that the appellate court committed the crime of interference with business of this case even though the defendant appealed after being sentenced to the suspension of the execution of imprisonment due to interference with business of the defendant, etc., and the appellate court continues to exist: The degree of interference with business of this case is not very serious and agreed with the victim, and the defendant recognizes and reflects the crime of this case. The crime of this case is one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution (120 hours of community service order), and the crime of this case is a concurrent crime of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.