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

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

Punishment of the crime

On January 30, 2016, the Defendant: (a) at the main point of “E” operated by the Victim D in Dong-gu, Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si; (b) at around 23:00, the Defendant brought the beer ordered by the Defendant; (c) paid in advance by the Defendant; and (d) at the same time, the Defendant changed the price to be paid in advance by the Defendant; and (c) at the same time, after solitary

"Absoning down the death, "Abanding down" year, "Absoning the table in two hands, etc., and obstructing the victim's performance of dan 20 minutes by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes reporting 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. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. Determination as to the defense counsel’s assertion under Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which costs of lawsuit

1. The Defendant’s act in the summary of the allegation did not reach the exercise of power in the crime of interference with business, and the Defendant did not have an intention to interfere with business.

2. Determination

A. “Authority” in the crime of interference with business refers to any force that may cause confusion with a free will of a person. The term “power” refers to any force that may cause confusion with a person’s free will, whether tangible or intangible, and includes assault intimidation, social, economic, political status, and pressure by force, etc., as well as assault intimidation. It does not require actual suppression of the victim’s free will by force (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8447, May 27, 2005, etc.). According to the evidence adopted by the court and examined by the court, the period when the defendant was 11 hours from the time when the creative customer who was the main store was dat, and the defendant continued to dat the victim’s refusal who was taking the main point as a woman, and caused the victim to destroy waste or scke it, etc., and the victim’s refusal on the part of the defendant.