A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, from around 08:10 on February 20, 2016 to around 08:40 on the same day, i.e., the victim D (or the age of 25) located in C in C, i.e., the Eski shop operated by the Eski shop, on the ground that it does not discount the cost of the skiing equipment rental at the Eski shop, and thus, is bad, i.e., the Defendant would have the victim, etc. in the place, who is waiting for the order of the settlement to give a reduction to the settlement unit, i.e., the Defendant would have the funeral service taken off

If there are many people, Sixth;

Governance 200,000

B. At the same time, it refers to the larger so that customers can not leave or enter the store because they did not comply with the victim's request for withdrawal by avoiding disturbance.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's skiing shop business by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of the respective legal statements of witnesses D, F, G and H to the law applicable;

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 on the key issue of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which is the cost of lawsuit

1. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant and his defense counsel asked the victim about the discount of the skiing equipment rent, and there was no substantial disturbance in the victim’s burial.

2. Taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of the judgment, the Defendant interfered with the business by avoiding disturbance at the victim’s store.

The decision is judged.

① Employees G and H, each of whom the Defendant had worked in the victim’s burial at the time of the instant case, demanded a discount at a continuing large interest rate before the store owner at the time of the instant case, and obstructed other customers from lending equipment.

was testified.

The testimony is merely a student who had a part of the victim's store in the case of H.