Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On September 30, 2013, from September 11:20 to 12:20 of the same day, the Defendant obstructed D’s legitimate business operations for a period of about one hour, including: (a) searching in the 'Ecafeteria' operated by Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Victim D; and (b) viewing brooms and brooms; and (c) leaving a vehicle in India, leaving the vehicle in India, leaving the vehicle in India, and taking a bath for about one hour.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the police interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to suspect suspect interrogation protocol of the police as to D (including the statement section of the police suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant);

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. As to the defense counsel’s assertion of the provisional payment order under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the defense counsel asserts that the defendant’s act does not constitute “defensive force” as an element for

In the crime of interference with business, the term “comfort force” in the crime of interference with business includes not only assault and intimidation, but also social, economic, political status and pressure by royalty as all tangible and intangible forces capable of suppressing and mixing a person’s free will, and such force includes acts of making certain physical conditions and making it impossible or considerably difficult for a person to perform his/her duties as a result of such act, even if he/she does not necessarily directly engage in his/her duties.

According to evidence, D parked a motor vehicle in the vicinity of the defendant's house and the two defendant demanded to detect the vehicle repeatedly as D's food store and repeatedly deducted the vehicle, and it can be recognized that he saw the disturbance and avoided the disturbance, and considering the characteristics of the meal store business in which people who run a business by eating a simple food and eating at the street, the food store business is operated as above by the defendant's act.