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

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

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Power] On October 11, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years and a fine of one hundred thousand won for the four months, due to the obstruction of performance of official duties, etc. at the Seoul Southern District Court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive.

【Criminal Facts】

On September 21, 2018, at around 21:35, the Defendant: (a) stated that “D” restaurant operated by the victim C located in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, without any justifiable reason, provided food to customers and the victim who had prepared to provide them with the food.” On the same day, at around 22:00, the Defendant continued to find the said restaurant again to be a restaurant, and interfered with the victim’s restaurant business by force, i.e., raising a disturbance to the customers who had avoided tobacco outside the restaurant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each written statement E and C;

1. 112 Reporting case handling table; and

1. Investigation report (on-siteCCTV analysis);

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: The application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning criminal records and investigation reports (including violence and investigation reports);

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

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

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

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act include: (a) a criminal defendant may have been convicted of violence; and (b) a criminal defendant again commits the instant crime without being aware of it while being tried due to the obstruction of performance of official duties, etc. recorded in the judgment of the court; etc.

However, the circumstances favorable to the defendant include the fact that the defendant erred, the victim C does not want the punishment of the defendant, and the fact that it is necessary to judge simultaneously with the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties as stated in the judgment in the crime of this case and ex post facto concurrent crimes, etc.