Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

Punishment of the crime

1. On February 27, 2018, from around 23:00 to February 0:50, 2018, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s legitimate carpet business by abusing the victim’s “D carpet” operated by the victim C (50 years, credit) with the first underground floor of Gangseo-gun Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun-gun, Seoul (hereinafter “D carpet”), on the ground that the victim was not able to repay the money previously borrowed by the victim. The Defendant expressed the victim’s desire at the large interest that “I would not carry on business every bit of the bit of the three-year bit of the three-year bit of the three-year bit of the three-year bit of the three-year bit of the three-year bit of the three-year bit of the three-year bit of the three-year bit of the three-year bit of the three-way bit of the three-way bit of the three-

2. The Defendant damaged property at the same date and time as in the preceding paragraph, and at a place where the victim owned the market price, one microphone, and one malicious dog was laid up on the floor, thereby impairing its utility.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Written statements of C, E, and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to field photographs and damaged parts of the photograph;

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business and the selection of fines) concerning facts constituting an offense, and Article 366 of the Criminal Act (the point of destroying property and the selection of fines);

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. Although there are factors for sentencing favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for the order of provisional payment seem to have been recognized and against the defendant, the defendant has no record of criminal punishment in addition to the punishment for the crime committed once. However, in light of the form, degree, duration, result, the number of persons involved in the instant case, etc. of business interference, additional damage occurred in the course of business interference, and there are many factors for sentencing unfavorable to the defendant, such as the fact that there is no consensus with the victim.

The age, gender, and administration of the defendant.