Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who is engaged in a day-to-day labor day.

On November 2016, between 15:00 to 17:00 on the date, the Defendant, as a result of the installation of partitions in the Dong-si B shop and the mobile phone store in the Gu-si B store and the mobile phone store, made it difficult for the Defendant to carry the candles into the city, flab, and flab, and flab, and made a bath.

On the other hand, the Defendant continuously obstructed the legitimate business of the victim D by force, such as cutting off the partitions before the cell phone store, cutting down the plastic chairs on the floor, and shouldering them.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Video CDs produced by the victim;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiries, such as criminal history;

1. Article 314 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. As to the issue of the main text of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the defendant and his defense counsel asserts that there was no interference with the victim's business by using flaps, etc. of the victim as stated in the facts charged of this case, such as flabing the victim's flaps or

In other words, the following circumstances acknowledged by this Court comprehensively based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, i.e., ① the victim operates a store and mobile phone store in the instant B commercial building from the investigative agency to the present court, and the spouse of the defendant operates the coffee shop at the next shop. The problem of the partitions was that the defendant's spouse was not good, and the dispute occurred on the day of the instant case, which was set up by his spouse. After the locking, the defendant was able to take care of the boom, and the defendant was able to take care of the breath, and the defendant went out of the store.