Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant was sent to the victim C with an internal relationship for about seven years.

1. At around 18:10 on July 27, 2012, the Defendant found the “E” operated by D Victim C at Kimhae-si, Kim Jong-si, and took a bath to the customer F, “I have been or was engaged in drinking, drinking, drinking, drinking, drinking, and drinking,” and interfered with the victim’s restaurant business by force, including, but not limited to, drinking, drinking, drinking, drinking, drinking, and drinking, drinking, drinking, drinking, drinking, and drinking, drinking, drinking, drinking, drinking, drinking, and drinking, drinking, drinking, drinking, drinking, drinking, and drinking, drinking, drinking, drinking, and drinking, drinking, drinking, and drinking.

2. On July 27, 2012, at around 20:05, the Defendant sought again at the same place as the above Paragraph 1, and thereafter interfered with the victim’s restaurant business by force, such as: (a) seeing that the customer F is drinking alcohol; (b) seeing that the customer F was drinking; (c) she provided a bath to the Defendant; and (d) talking the Defendant again; and (d) her talking that “two million won should be granted to him/her, he/she may not enter the restaurant.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant (the fourth court date);

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Partial statement of the police interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Application of each police protocol of statement C to the Act

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

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

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

4. As to the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant and the defense counsel asserted to the effect that the Defendant and the defense counsel did not exercise force to the extent that they did not interfere with the work.

However, according to C's statement, it can be recognized that the defendant used force to the extent that he would interfere with the victim's restaurant business at the time.