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

The defendant is a director of C Cooperation Company.

피고인은, 2017. 6. 16. 20:30 경 거제시 D에 있는 피해자 E( 남, 57세) 가 운영하는 'F' 내에서 술에 취하여 “ 도너츠와 꽈배기 한 봉지를 달라” 고 하였다.

이에, 피해 자가 도너츠와 꽈배기가 든 봉지를 건네 주자, “ 나는 꽈배기를 안 좋아 하니 도너츠를 더 넣어 라 ”라고 요구하였다.

However, the victim does not have any remaining Doz.

public order given to a customer who conducts funeral services at his/her request. “The public order given to a customer who does not engage in funeral services must be given.”

Purpose of this Act;

60 20 20 202

The expression "Chumping" was intended to prevent other customers from having access.

이로써, 피고인은 위력으로, 약 30 분간 피해자가 운영하는 꽈배기 가게의 업무를 방해 하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. A statement by the defendant in court (a statement to the effect that the defendant himself/herself has taken a bath at the time and place of the ruling);

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation results and investigation results;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 314 (Selection of Penalty) of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. In the formation of a crime of interference with the reason for judgment of conviction under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, it does not require that the result of interference with the business should actually occur, but it is sufficient that there is a risk of causing interference with the business (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do3044, Apr. 10, 1992, etc.). Thus, intention does not necessarily require the intention of interference with the purpose of interference with the business or planned interference with the business, but it is sufficiently possible to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of interference with another person's business due to his own act, and its recognition or prediction is not only conclusive but also indefinitely recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do4141, May 24, 2012).