A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

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

Punishment of the crime

On April 2, 2020, the Defendant: (a) on April 13:09, operated by the Victim C in Bupyeong-gu Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon; (b) on the premise that the Defendant had the Defendant issued the Defendant’s right to receive the payment of the false internal forest; and (c) on the premise that the Defendant had made the Defendant’s right to receive payment of the false internal forest

Where the fraud is changed, anywhere in this year

“Along with the desire of the victim, the victim interfered with the speedless business of the victim by force for about 20 minutes, such as opening the floor of the hand or pushing down the stronger owned by the victim.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness C and E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint filed by each police statement protocol against C and E;

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

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the argument is that the Defendant did not contain the floor of the victim as the victim would be able to take a bath, or when the victim would be waiting, and that the victim’s strong will would lead the Defendant, thereby leading him to an influence. Therefore, the Defendant did not interfere with the business of the victim, and the Defendant did not have any intention to interfere with the business.

2. Determination

A. The term “power of force” in the crime of interference with the business of legal doctrine is a form of force that may lead to the suppression and confusion of a person’s free will. It is not necessary to hold a victim’s free will either tangible or intangible (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do10956, Oct. 27, 2016, etc.). However, the crime of interference with business is not established if there is no concern about the occurrence of a result, but it is established if there is a risk of causing interference with business (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do5432, Oct. 27, 2005).