Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

While the Defendant arrived at the front side of Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan City E-ro, a destination where the victim C(51 years of age, South) drive, and paid the charge by using the card, the Defendant made an error by affixing the card.

1. Around July 21, 2013:03:10 on July 21, 2013, the Defendant: (a) removed a taxi driver’s license certificate attached to the Grand Sheet in his/her hands and damaged the property in the market value.

2. The Defendant was trying to extract the key of the vehicle from kisk in the event that he/she had a verbal dispute with the victim at the above date, time and place.

This was the victim's restraint, and assaulted twice to the victim's drinking.

3. The Defendant interfered with the business of the victim for about five minutes, such as removing a certificate of qualification to drive a taxi attached to the Switzerland, returning the keys of the vehicle, etc., even after paying the taxi fee at the above date, time, and place, thereby interfering with the victim’s taxi business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the defendant that he/she removed the certificate of qualification for taxi driver and extracted the keys of the vehicle;

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the report on the certification of qualification of taxi drivers and the field of violence;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the selection of fines for crimes;

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

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The Defendant and the defense counsel regarding the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the provisional payment order. The Defendant and the defense counsel attempted to proceed with the victim’s “whether or not a taxi engineer” while the victim said the Defendant to get off the taxi in the course of paying the taxi fee recorded in the judgment, and the head sentence of the taxi was open. In this case, the Defendant prevented the taxi from proceeding.