Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

1. On June 2, 2018, from around 01:00 to 03:00 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) was demanded by the victim C in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu to leave the Defendant smoking tobacco in the PC room from the “D” room where the victim C works as an employee; (b) the victim was asked to have the Defendant smoking tobacco in the PC room from the victim to the PC room.

Mabro Mabro Ma

It was difficult to avoid disturbance, such as “satisfying”.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the above PC business of the victimized person by force for about two hours.

2. No one who violates the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act shall recklessly throw away cigarette butts, gum, suspension, wastes, dead animal, other dirty or useless things at any place;

Nevertheless, around 03:10 on June 2, 2018, the Defendant recklessly laid away cigarette butts on the street on the front side of the PC room.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. C’s statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the recognition of crimes and reporting of investigation results;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 314 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, and Article 3 (1) 11 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act [Selection of a fine for a crime of interference with the duties in the judgment] concerning the crime;

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. Even though there are many records of punishment for the reasons of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, it is recognized that the crime of this case was committed again despite the fact that it had been punished for the same kind of crime of the defendant, but depth is divided after the crime. The degree of interference with the business of this case is relatively minor, and the sentencing conditions on the records, such as the defendant's age, occupation, sex, sex, family relationship, living environment, circumstances leading to the crime, circumstance after the crime, etc., should be comprehensively considered to determine the sentence like the order.