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

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On August 27, 2016, from around 01:10 to October 03:10 of the same day, the Defendant: (a) had the victim D (the victim 22 years old) located in the Cheong-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu; (b) had the victim talked with the victim; (c) had the other customers take a bath; and (d) forced the other customers to take a part in drinking alcohol; and (d) had the customer take part in drinking alcohol.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's business by force for about 2 hours.

2. The Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties at the time, at the place, referred to in the preceding paragraph (1) and at the time, at the time, and at the place, reported 112, expressed his desire to ask questions about the interference of duties from F to the police officer belonging to E District of the petition police station, and assaulted the smoke of tobacco being exposed to the face of the above F.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of official duties by police officers who conduct 112 reporting processing work.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of G, D, and F;

1. Each police statement made with H and D;

1. Application of Gutical Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business), Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with the performance of public duties) and the selection of each fine for a crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

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

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. According to the following circumstances acknowledged based on each of the above evidence as to whether there was a threat of interference with business operations, it is sufficiently recognized that there was sufficient force to interfere with business operations by the victim.

Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act provides that the crime of interference with business affairs is established when a person interferes with business affairs by deceptive means or by force. The term "power" is all the forces that may control and confuse a person's free will, and is not charged with a tangible, intangible, or intangible (Supreme Court Decision 2008Do806 Decided December 24, 2008).