Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 6,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

[criminal records] On July 1, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment with labor due to interference with business affairs at the Busan District Court, and completed the execution of the sentence at the Jinju Prison on January 11, 2017.

[Criminal facts]

1. From January 23, 2017 to May 3, 2010 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) the victim’s interference with the business was 5,00 won for the reason that the value of beer is not high from the E operation of the victim D located in Busan Jin-gu, Busan to the end of Busan.

The president of the Association, the head of the Association, and the head of the Chewing baby, were expressed in a large sound, etc., thereby obstructing the victim’s main business by force.

2. 모욕 피고인은 2017. 1. 23. 01:53 경 제 1 항 기재 장소에서 피고인이 술값을 내지 않고 행패를 부린다는 112 신고를 받고 출동한 피해 자인 부산진 경찰서 F 지구대 소속 경위 G으로부터 귀가할 것을 요청 받자 업주와 손님 3명이 있는 가운데 피해자에게 ‘ 씹할 놈 아, 내가 교도소 어제 출소 했는데, 좋게 말할 때 그냥 가라, 건방 떨지 말고 씹쌔끼들아 그냥 가라, 경찰이면 다가 이 씹할 새끼야, 대가리 찍어 뿔라, 씹할’ 이라고 큰소리로 말하여 공연히 피해자를 모욕하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to D;

1. A previous conviction: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, an investigation report (the criminal record of a repeated crime and the previous conviction and confirmation of violence);

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 311 of the Criminal Act, Article 311 of the Criminal Act, and the selection of fines for a 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. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (hereinafter “Criminal Procedure Act”) is not well-known during the period of repeated crime, and the liability for each of the crimes of this case is not against the law. However, the fact that the mistake is recognized and against the law, and that an agreement has been reached with the victim to interfere with the business.