Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On March 15, 2018, the Defendant called, “C” located in Gyeyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, the Defendant: (a) sent a telephone call for one hour; and (b) requested the victim D (e.g., 47 years of age) who was an employee to put the said net call; (b) demanded the victim to put the said net call back to the said net call; and (c) on the ground that the victim had been able to bring the victim back to the said net call, the Defendant stated, “The victim was able to have a telephone call for more than one hour at the time when the victim saw down,” and said, “Is this food,” on the ground that the victim said, “Is this need to do so,” and the victim said, “Is this need to do so.

It interfered with the operation of the cafeteria by the victim by force, such as cutting down the hot pots in the above net state towards the victim by keeping them into the victim's growth, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to field photographs, video CDs, investigation reports (as to cases of injury caused by negligence);

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. The Defendant, on the grounds of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, committed the instant crime even during the period of repeated crime, following the completion of the execution of the sentence on December 18, 2017, by having been sentenced to ten months for a violation of road traffic laws on April 6, 2017.

The crime of this case is not a crime that interferes with the operation of the restaurant of the victim by force, such as: (a) the defendant gets a large amount of pots on the ground that the victim’s attitude, who is an employee, is not against the mind; (b) and (c) making the strings into the victim by keeping the strings into the victim’s growth, etc.; and (c)

The Defendant did not reflect on his own crime even though the victim could have been significantly different due to the instant crime.

However, the defendant's crime of this case is recognized, and violence is exercised.