Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

The Defendants did not pay each of the above fines.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A and Defendant B are the main figures.

On February 10, 2017, around 22:20, the Defendants got to drink to the F cafeteria operated by the injured party E in the C Building D in Nam-si, Namyang-si.

Defendant

B under the influence of alcohol, duplicing a string of crokes into the floor and duping up a string of crokes containing food, resulting in the stringing of the strings on the floor and cutting off the strings on the floor of the strings.

이에 피해자가 그만 계산하고 나가시라고 하자 내가 뭘 잘못했냐

In the process of sound, Defendant A, because of the fact that the victim's life, Defendant A was supported by the victim, and the victim's repeated main points did not meet the demand for eviction, and the victim was able to bring a disturbance and take a bath.

The Defendants jointly interfered with the victim’s operation of the restaurant by force of approximately 20 minutes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Part of the Defendants’ legal statements

1. Each legal statement of witness E, G and H;

1. Photographs, such as a report on investigation (on-site conditions, etc.) and a tables of the site;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiries, such as each criminal history;

1. Relevant legal provisions and the Defendants’ choice of punishment regarding criminal facts: Articles 314(1) and 314 of the Criminal Act; and the choice of fines

1. Defendants to be detained in the workhouse: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Defendants to bear the costs of lawsuit: The Defendant and the defense counsel in the judgment on the issue of the main sentence of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act are unfairly different from the victim on the ground that Defendant B has diminished alcohol residues or liner liners

Then, the Defendants rejected and resisted as customers, and asserted that the Defendants did not interfere with the victim’s business by jointly avoiding disturbance as stated in the facts charged of the instant case.

The following circumstances, i.e., the victim E, which are duly adopted and investigated by this Court, are met at the investigative agency.