2012 Highest 3374 Business Obstruction, Intimidation

Chapters** (680627-1----), and non-permanent office

Residence Gyeongbuk-si, Gyeongbuk-si

Attorney Shin Sung-sung (Korean Civil Code)

July 19, 2012

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Criminal facts

1. Interference with business;

(a) Crimes against the mother of the victim;

(1) On January 10, 2012, the Defendant: (a) 21:00 on January 10, 2012, at the restaurant operated by the victim her mother on the pressure level, she sited in the table, flabed one disease; (b) opened to customers with only one cigarette; and (c) opened to her customers, she saw her to her for about 20 minutes, such as “responding her to her end. h. h. h. h. h. h. h.”, and obstructed the victim’s restaurant business by force by forcing customers of the said restaurant to leave the her place.

(2) At around 20:30 on February 16, 2012, the Defendant: (a) putting 1 bottled in the above restaurant; (b) putting the victim with a string, sitting on the table, leaving the string, leaving the string, leaving the string, leaving the string, leaving the string, leaving the string, leaving the string, leaving the string, and leaving the 20 minutes of the 20 minutes of the 20th century; and (c) putting the string of the string, leaving the string, leaving the string, and leaving the 20 minutes of the string, thereby obstructing the victim’s restaurant business by force.

(3) At around 20:00 on March 20, 2012, the Defendant: (a) carried one disease at the above restaurant; and (b) interfered with the victim’s restaurant business by force for about 20 minutes on the ground that the Defendant was the victim who was seated on the table, and that he was the victim. The Defendant did not find out the inside of the ice, lap, lap, door closed; and (c) he did not leave the inside; and (d) the Defendant interfered with the victim’s restaurant business by force.

(4) On April 23, 2012, the Defendant: (a) 20:10 on April 23, 2012, the Defendant: (b) held a single bottle of flag in the above restaurant; (c) obstructed the victim’s restaurant business by force by force, such as: (d) putting the victim of the defect “a Mauritius, leaving out of her her body, and closing this maurius; (d) she has reported her face, but (e) she has to be given an official commendation of the reported body.”

(b) Crimes against weather of victims;

(1) On February 15:00 early February 2, 2012, the Defendant: (a) expressed the victim’s desire on the street, such as “Chewing dynasium”; (b) hynasium (1m in length) fynasium; and (c) hynasium hynasium (1m in possession) hynasium; and (d) hynasium hynasium hynasium hynasium hynasium hynasium hynasium hynasium hynasium hynasium hynasium, which

(2) On April 17, 2012, the Defendant: (a) 08:00 on April 17, 2012, 201, she saw the victim’s fluoral sium, such as “Chewing dynasium, in accordance with the same manner; and (b) obstructed the victim’s fluoral fluorial business by putting the fluoral brush in his possession, and preventing the customers of the said fluoral fluoral from entering the said place.

(c) Crimes against the assistance of victims;

(1) On March 15, 2012, at around 15:00, the Defendant expressed the victim’s desire to “a bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of lux of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of bit of

(2) On April 23, 2012, at around 15:05, the Defendant expressed the victim’s bath at the above restaurant, and obstructed the victim’s restaurant business by force by forcing the customers of the above restaurant to leave the restaurant, thereby interfering with the victim’s restaurant business by neglecting the victim’s restaurant business by putting the 20 minutes of cryp, namely, “Ie cryp typ sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp.

(3) On April 25, 2012, around 08:40 on April 25, 2012, the Defendant demanded the victim to provide alcohol at the restaurant as indicated in the foregoing paragraph (d), but was rejected, and thus, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s restaurant business by force by bringing about about about about about about 10 minutes of his failure, such as taking a bath to see why she would be obsible or Chewing.

2. Intimidation;

(a) Crimes against weather of victims;

Around 08:00 on March 2012, the Defendant reported that the victim’s her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her shed

(b) Crimes against the tear of the victim;

At around 15:05 on April 23, 2012, the Defendant: (a) threatened the victim of the victim’s tear weather with her hym, as described in paragraph (3) of Article 1, with the Defendant’s hym that she provided her hym with her hym as described in paragraph (1). The Defendant hym that she provided her hym, “hym, hym, hym, hym, hym, hym, hym, hym, hym, and hym hym hym hym hym hym hym.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of each police station;

1. A written statement of the weather;

1. Each report on investigation;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Code (the point of intimidation, the choice of imprisonment), Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Code (the point of interference with business, the choice of imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act are as follows: (a) the Defendant interfered with or threatened the victims' business by force under the influence of force while under the influence of alcohol, thereby causing unstable and fears not only to the direct victims of the instant case but also to the neighboring residents; (b) although not in the instant case, the parents did not have access to children in need of special protection at elementary school and submit a written application for the punishment of the Defendant to the local residents; (c) the Defendant appears to have been separated from his/her unmarried family; (d) the Defendant was living together with the victims without any special occupation; and (e) the Defendant lacks social ties relationship, such as his/her daily life under the influence of alcohol; and (e) the Defendant lacks his/her body and life without prejudice to his/her fault in the course of investigation; and (e) the Defendant seems to have suffered considerable harm to his/her own property during the short period of time or without any specific reason.

Judges Mobileho