Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50 days shall be applied.

Criminal facts

On July 2, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 13:55 on July 2, 2017, at the D cafeteria managed by the victim C in Busan, the Defendant: (b) stated, without any reason, that “The owner of the arche, where the arche, is deducted; and (c) the victim, using a defective bridge that the victim intends to go out of the cafeteria to report to the police, makes two customers come out of the cafeteria without taking an order of food; and (d) when the victim, who is an employee, returned to the port when he returned to the port when he returned to the port of 1st century, “The son, the son, and the son, the son, the son of which the son was seated.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the restaurant business of the victim of about 15 minutes by force, and assaulted the victim at time.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of the police statement statutes to E and C;

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business and the selection of fines) concerning the facts constituting an offense, and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of violence and the selection of fines);

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [to the extent that the aggregate of the amounts of concurrent crimes committed by a person interfering with heavier duties (the above two crimes shall be added up)];

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 during the period of repeated crime not exceeding six months after having had a record of criminal punishment several times prior to the instant crime, and the execution of imprisonment with prison labor sentenced for other crimes was completed.

This is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the degree of interference with the business of the crime of this case is serious.

It is difficult to see, and the defendant's mistake is late.