[Defendant A] The defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is in a de facto marital relationship with B, and the victim C (n, 43 years of age) is the defendant and the debtor of B.

Defendant

A sought on March 31, 2016 at the “E cafeteria” operated by the injured party of Pyeongtaek-si D, and the victim followed the cafeteria, and collected the cafeteria at the bar, and collected the table from the employee who prepared for food in the kitchen at the kitchen, and prevented the employee from preparing for the restaurant business, because the inseminator was sent back to the cafeteria, and the inseminator was sent back to the inseminator, and prevented the employee from preparing for the restaurant business.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's restaurant operation by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. A protocol concerning the suspect B of the police;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

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

1. The part dismissing a public prosecution under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act against the order of provisional payment

1. The summary of the facts charged is that Defendant B is unable to be liable for a short amount of money on the ground that the victim C (V, 43 years of age) was not able to repay the money to the victim’s cell phone on March 31, 2016.

The phrase, “,” sent the word to the victim’s wife, thereby threatening the victim as if they were detrimental to the victim’s wife.

2. Determination

(a) Crimes of non-violation of intention: Article 283 (3) of the Criminal Act;

B. On January 18, 2017, the victim after the indictment of this case, expressed his/her intention not to be punished against Defendant B, respectively.

Dismissal of public prosecution: It is so decided as per Disposition on the grounds of Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act or more.