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

At around 08:00 on January 17, 2020, the Defendant: (a) expressed a 'D restaurant operated by the Victim C in the Cheongsong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun; (b) expressed that the victim was “hicking on the floor” on the ground that the victim was “licking on the front day”; (c) expressed a 10,000 won labbbing ladne on the floor; and (d) expressed the victim’s desire to “licking on the front day, flabing on the front day, flabing on the front day, flabing on the back; and (d) avoided the disturbance for about 30 minutes, such as flabing the victim’s flab.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's restaurant business by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the police protocol law to C

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

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

1. The sentencing factors indicated in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, environment, character and conduct, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., under the reason of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the factors of sentencing as stated in the arguments of this case

In extenuating circumstances: The Defendant had been punished seven times (one-time imprisonment, one-time suspension of execution, and five-time fines) due to an act of violence, intimidation, interference with business, or revocation of order, and in particular, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the purpose of obstructing performance of duties, etc. at the Daegu District Court on July 9, 2019 and completed the execution of the sentence on October 6, 2019.

The crime of this case was committed again in 3 months after being released from prison without being aware of it.

The favorable circumstances: The defendant recognized and divided his mistake, and the defendant appears to have committed the crime of this case by contingently, the degree of damage is relatively minor, and the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant.