beta
Text
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
Reasons
1. The facts charged of this case: (a) around 03:00 on January 24, 2018, in Daegu Dong-gu, Daegu Dong-gu, and (b) during the purchase of tobacco and alcoholic beverages within D convenience points, the following facts charged of this case refer to the victim, who was requested to present an identification card to verify whether he is a minor by E, an employee, “I am ra,” and the victim, upon receiving a report from the victim, have done an act of putting the police officer on the part of the victim, who was called out, and was in contact with B, expressed the victim’s desire to “I see this dog,” and “F,” who was called “I am at the convenience store,” and had expressed his identification card before it, but it changed the identification card.
I am to the purport that the police officer called "I am to am to am to the am to the am to the am to the am to the am to the am to the am to the am to the am to the am to the am to the am to the am to the am to the am to the am to the am to the am to the am to the am to the am to the am to the am to the am to the am to the am to the am to the am to the am to the am to the am to the am to the am to the am to the am to the am to the am to the son, and
In the face of the threat, it is likely to give disadvantage to the National Police Agency and the media because of the mistake or mistake.
" and heighted and brought about an article."
In collusion with B and F, the Defendant interfered with E’s convenience store operation for about 1 hour and 20 minutes.
2. Since the crime of interference with the judgment is established only when there is a awareness that it interferes with another person's business by force is an intentional crime. Thus, if the means of crime leading to such degree or the criminal intent cannot be recognized, it shall not be deemed that the crime of interference with another person's business cannot be committed merely with the result that the risk of interference with another person's business has occurred (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do5937, Nov. 26, 2004). This case's health stand, and this court shall not apply to this case.