Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On September 7, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years and a fine of three million won in imprisonment for a crime of interference with business at the Daegu District Court on August 8, 2017, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on September 15, 2017.

On July 14, 2017, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s main business by force for about 30 minutes, by putting the victim’s inside and outside the foregoing prior to the entry of the victim D(73 tax) with a defect in the victim’s live together D(73 tax) (the victim’s 68 years of age) in the Nam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Nam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City B (the victim’s live together). The Defendant expressed that the victim’s live together D(the victim’s 73 years of age) would take a big view, and bring the D into the body.

Summary of Evidence

1. Some of the protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. A report on dispatch to the scene interfering with affairs;

1. Previous convictions: Inquiry of criminal history, reporting of the previous convictions and reporting of the results thereof, and applying the statutes of the judgment;

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. After Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 39 (1) of the same Act:

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, on June 21, 2016, is that the defendant was sentenced to a three-year period of suspension of the execution of imprisonment for an injury to this court on the grounds of the crime of injury in this court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on February 28, 2017, and committed the instant crime again without being aware of it, and the defendant committed a serious violent crime, and the defendant has a large number of criminal records of violence, and thus, there is considerable risk of repeating the crime in the state of principal action. The defendant's rejection of the instant case and is disadvantageous to the defendant.

It is advantageous that the defendant has agreed with the victim, and that it is reasonable to consider the equity between the defendant and the defendant's decision at the same time.

In addition, the sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the age, sex, etc. of the defendant, are integrated.