beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On July 21, 2014, from around 16:30 to 17:40 the same day, the Defendant stated that “F” at the main point of “F” located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H, the victim N, a manager of H, “B”, “Iba, Iba, and Issss, are criminal groups. I tried to engage in sexual traffic on the ground of Iba and Issia as a branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the Defendant
By preventing customers from entering, it interfered with the legitimate main business of victims by force.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement of N police statement;
1. A written statement of the N;
1. On-site report [The above evidence recognizes the fact that the defendant committed an act identical to the facts of the crime. In addition, business interference with business shall not be performed regardless of whether the defendant's duties are main or incidental to the crime of interference with business, and it constitutes a case where the defendant was conducted in a close relationship with the performance of his original duties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8701, Apr. 15, 2005). Even if the defendant did not have a main customer at the time of performing the act of recording the facts of the crime and the employee was preparing for business, the crime of interference with business is established so that the defendant
1. The relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts, and the reason for sentencing a sentence of imprisonment with prison labor, are the same crime that interferes with the business of the instant “F” main points, which has been already sentenced to fines twice, and the fact that it appears that the victim was damaged several times thereafter (14 pages of investigation records), and that one’s mistake has not been divided.