Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On May 23, 2017, the Defendant, at a “E” restaurant operated by the victim D, the victim D in Namyang-ju, on May 23, 2017, for the reason that the victim installed a table on India and run outdoor business.

50,000 won, 500 won, which should be reported for viewing, was "in other words," and 50,000 won was delivered from the injured party to the victim by reporting the illegal act if the person refuses to comply with it.

2. From around 10:00 on May 24, 2017 to around 12:10 on the same place, the Defendant, who interfered with business, filed a report with the victim on the following places: “The victim shall be subject to the calculation of tax base: (a) the amount of money; (b) the amount of money KRW 240,00,000 is installed outside the table, where he

"In other words, it threatens several times, and the customer who has received meals within the restaurant with the desire to "unsatisfe", and interfere with the victim's restaurant operation by force over two hours due to the passage inside and outside of the restaurant and the passing of highness in the restaurant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation;

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 350(1) of the Criminal Act (a) (a point of conflict), Article 314(1) (a) (a point of interference with business) of the Criminal Act, and the selection of each fine concerning the facts of 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 on the Aggravated Punishment of the Provisional Payment Order (which is not applicable to the sentencing guidelines as a decision of penalty) is that the defendant prevented the victim from committing any crime of public conflict with the victim’s illegal outside business loan, and prevents the victim’s restaurant business, and that the crime’s liability is not weak.

The fact that a repeated crime of this case was committed without being aware of during the period of repeated crime, and that the defendant had been punished due to interference with his duties, etc. is disadvantageous.

However, the defendant recognized all of his mistake and depth.