Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On November 24, 2016, the Defendant: (a) resisted the victim on the ground that there is a problem in the mobile phone purchased at the victim D’s 'E’ mobile phone sales store in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu around 17:00 on November 24, 2016, on the ground that there is a problem in the mobile phone purchased at the victim D

“The victim’s right hand hand hand, etc., which is the employee of the above-sale shop where the Defendant was placed, was able to avoid disturbance for about two hours, such as the victim’s left hand hand hand hand, etc., and the victim’s left hand hand, etc., who is an employee of the above-sale shop where the Defendant was placed, was able to avoid disturbance for about two hours.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the management and operation of the victims' stores by force.

2. In the above date, at the above time and place, the injured Defendant was wheeled with the victim’s right hand hand hand, etc., and the victim’s left hand hand hand hand, etc. of the victim F (19 years old), and the victim’s hand hand hand hand hand, etc. of the victim G (29 years old) led to the victim’s failure to exhaust the number of days of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to D, F, G, and H;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on images of each bodily injury;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business) and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

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 defense counsel's assertion regarding the defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order constitutes a passive defense act committed by the defendant for the purpose of removing the victims' losses by pushing ahead of the wheelchairs, and thus constitutes a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

"Acts that do not violate social norms" in Article 20 of the Criminal Code means social ethics that is being in the spirit of the whole legal order or its surroundings.