Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 100,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

around 15:00 on October 12, 2016, the Defendant requested the victim F, the principal owner of the above clothing store, to refund the clothes in the “E” clothing store located in the new building C, Jung-gu, Seoul, Seoul, to the victim F, the owner of the above clothing store, and the Defendant was at the time of the purchase of the clothing, and the Defendant would not be required to inform the Defendant of the amount of KRW 3 million or at least one million as compensation for the damage.

For about one hour, such as “the disturbance,” which interfered with the business of the victim’s store.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Application of enforcement manual statutes;

1. Relevant Article 3 (2) 3 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act (Optional to the punishment) concerning the crime;

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

1. Determination on the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion

A. Article 3(2)3 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act provides that “A person who interferes with the business of another person, organization, or person performing official duties due to an unforeseen accident, etc. (Interference with the business)” (Article 3(2)3 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act). The above act by the Defendant does not include the above act in “uncompetence.”

B. Although the Defendant had a sound in the above clothing shop, the Defendant refused to return the clothes purchased by the Defendant while demanding the return of the clothes, and the Defendant’s sound was humbling to the Defendant by the merchants such as the victim, and the police officers dispatched.

2. Determination

A. “Influence, etc.” under Article 3(2)3 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act is an example of obstructing business operations, which is a form of an act prescribed in Article 3(2)3 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act. It can be interpreted that a certain act is not accompanied by violence or intimidation, and even if such act is relatively relatively less, it constitutes a requirement to obstruct business operations. The Defendant may interfere with the victim’s business by demanding unreasonable refund and compensation as described below, such as avoiding disturbance.