Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On November 14, 2018, the dismissal of public prosecution was decided as the cancellation of public prosecution.

The Defendant is a person who operates a coffee shop on the second floor of the building located in Gangwon Yangyang-gun B, and the victim C (Inn, 54 years old) is a person who operates a D cafeteria on the first floor of the above building.

1. On July 8, 2017, around 12:50 on July 8, 2017, the Defendant: (a) filed a prosecution against the victim’s husband E to install a signboard on the outer wall of the above building; and (b) entered the above “D” restaurant; (c) among customers, etc., the Defendant was indicted that there was interference with the Defendant’s business during approximately 10 minutes of “one-hour-hour” period, such as “I am hick business without making a house or house,” and “I am hickk kbb

However, the Defendant alleged that the time inside the “D” restaurant was only 20 minutes and 3 minutes, and the F stated to the effect that it was difficult to satisfy inside the said restaurant during the 10 to 15 minutes “10 minutes” on the third trial date. Even if based on the recording file recording the situation at the time of the instant case, it does not seem that the time when the Defendant was in the said restaurant does not reach one hour, so criminal facts were committed.

In the meantime, it interfered with the victim's restaurant business by force.

2. When the Defendant committed the act as described in Paragraph 1., at the time and place mentioned in the above Paragraph 1., the victim prevented the Defendant, and assaulted the victim in a manner of 4 times the victim’s face face with fingers.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

1. The statements of witnesses E and C in the second trial records;

1. Statement made by a witness F in the third protocol of the trial;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. As to the obstruction of business, first of all, the Defendant did not have customers at the time of the instant case, and the horses recorded in facts constituting an offense are not inside the restaurant, so that he could interfere with the victim’s restaurant business.