Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On July 31, 2012, at the D restaurant located in Daegu Dong-gu, Daegu-gu, on July 31, 2012, the Defendant damaged the property by putting the beer’s disease, which is the victim E, on the table, on the table, table table, calculation table, breaking about 10 bottles in the beer and the beer’s disease in the air conditioning, and destroying the property whose damage amount cannot be known.

2. The Defendant interfered with the business of the Defendant, by force, obstructed the victim E-cafeteria business by preventing customers from entering the restaurant by damaging the beer’s disease, etc. at the time and place as mentioned in paragraph (1).

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the second protocol of trial;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Receipts:

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business), Article 366 of the Criminal Act, and selection of fines for the crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant asserts that, with respect to interference with the business of the victim, he/she did not intentionally interfere with the victim’s restaurant business, although he/she claimed that the victim’s D restaurant did not see it with F and G in relation to wage issues.

2. According to the evidence as seen earlier, the Defendant: (a) was found to have interfered with the victim’s restaurant business due to the following facts: (b) the victim’s drinking of F, G and alcohol in the restaurant; (c) the beer, the beer, the beer, the beer, and the beer displayed inside the restaurant coolant, the size of 10 bottles on the floor; and (d) preventing the entry of customers entering the restaurant, thereby obstructing the victim’s restaurant business; and (c) according to the above acknowledged facts, the Defendant intentionally interfered with the Defendant’s business.