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

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

Punishment of the crime

On February 8, 2018, at around 16:20, the Defendant requested the victim E, who is an employee of the foregoing office (subsidiary) in the securities office located in Busan Shipping Daegu C, to submit relevant documents in relation to the Brazil State bond fee that the Defendant traded. On the ground that the victim had previously issued data of the same content on three occasions, the Defendant rejected the request on the ground that the victim had previously issued data of the same content;

In the lawsuit, I tried not to keep the case at hand, and I tried to prevent scars from confirming the transaction details on the Internet, and Scars operated the exchange rate.

“Along with the victim’s continuous demand for withdrawal, the victim obstructed the victim’s work by force by avoiding about 70 minutes of disturbance, thereby preventing the victim from performing customer reception and termination work.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. 112 Reporting of reported case handling lists and reporting of investigation results, applying 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. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. The crime of this case on the ground of sentencing under Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which was based on the judgment of the court below, was committed by 70 minutes, including that the crime of this case was committed in the office of the securities company. The nature of the crime is bad. The defendant does not seem to have any attitude against the purport that it interferes with the business of the securities company for a long time, even though he was under the responsibility of the securities company, and only interfered with the securities company's business as a customer and only demanded a legitimate demand. The defendant has three records of punishment for the same kind of crime.

However, the fact that there is no record of punishment that the defendant has been sentenced to a fine exceeding the fine is favorable.

In addition, this case's age, sex, environment, means and results of crimes, circumstances after crimes, etc.