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

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

Punishment of the crime

On February 9, 2019, around 06:30 on February 9, 2019, the Defendant was working in the D party room operated by the victim C in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gwanak-gu B and 3, but he expressed a desire to the victims and customers on the ground that he did not exist, and received the demand from the victim.

However, the defendant does not comply with it and remains there until he is arrested from the police officer who was dispatched by the report of the victim at around 07:34 on the same day, and leaves the victim's place without justifiable reasons.

The Gu refused to comply with the Gu.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

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

1. The E and F statements (the defendant and his defense counsel did not receive the request for the eviction from the manager of the party headquarters of this case, and even if they received the request for eviction, there are justifiable grounds for the victim's failure to leave. However, according to the investigation agencies of E and F and the statements in this court, the fact that the victim, who is the joint operator of the party headquarters of this case, requested the defendant at the time of the request of the customer, can be acknowledged. Furthermore, there is no evidence to deem that the defendant at the time of this case, there is no justifiable reason for the defendant not responding to the request for the withdrawal from the victim. Accordingly, the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion is without merit).

1. Relevant Article 319 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of fines;

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

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that E, who operates the headquarters of this case, does not want punishment for the defendant, along with the victim's reason for sentencing of the provisional payment order.