A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four months.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal records] On February 3, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment and a fine of one million won by obstructing business operations at the Seoul Northern District Court on February 3, 2016, and completed the execution of the sentence at the Sungdong Detention House on March 31, 2016.

[2] On February 23, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 02:40 on February 23, 2017, at the E convenience store where the victim D works in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant, under the influence of alcohol, brought a fine of KRW 1,200,000,000,000,000,000.

By doing so, a disturbance, such as mara, FM, Ra, was committed, and the police called the above convenience store came out of the above convenience store on the same day, and again, the above victim was found to receive 120,000 won breath due to width, and the victim got a large amount of sound, and thereby hindering the victim's convenience store business operation by force by avoiding disturbance for about 30 minutes, including 120,000 won.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. A detailed statement of 112 reported and processed;

1. The head of the crime, caps and photographs;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, and Acts and subordinate statutes on investigation reports (personal confinement status);

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Determination as to the defendant's assertion of Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes

1. The gist of the assertion lies in the fact that the Defendant is somewhat imprisoned of a dispute with the victim, but does not interfere with the duties of the victim by using “power”.

2. The term “power of force” of the crime of interference with the determination of a person’s free will is any force that may cause confusion with another person’s free will, and it does not necessarily require that the victim’s free will should be de facto controlled (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do10956, Oct. 27, 2016, etc.). In addition, the crime of interference with business does not require that the result of interference with business would actually occur as an abstract dangerous offender, and is not the result of interference with business.