Enlarge Image

▲ The above photo has no direct relation to the content of the article.


 A man in his 40s who was handed over to trial for causing a disturbance at a pharmacy because he paid for another customer's goods first was sentenced to a fine. 



Yesterday (10th), according to the court, Judge Jeon Seon-se, the 9th detective of the Seoul Eastern District Court, sentenced Mr. A (44), who was charged with obstruction of business, to a fine of 2 million won.



On the afternoon of October 4, 2021, Mr. A is accused of interfering with business at a pharmacy in Gangdong-gu, Seoul, by getting angry and behaving badly because pharmacist B paid for other customers' items first. 



He demanded a refund for the purchased medicine and pointed at Mr. B, shouting, "How did you get home training?" 



He was also charged with kicking the pharmacy sales desk and intimidating other customers.



During the trial, Mr. A argued, "I did not exercise power against Mr. B, there were few customers in the pharmacy at the time, there was no risk of obstruction of business, and there was no intention to interfere with the pharmacy's business."



However, the judge pointed out, "At the time, Mr. B was operating at a pharmacy alone, and Mr. A's violent behavior seems to have caused Mr. B to feel fear."



At the time, customer C, who entered the pharmacy during Mr. A's crime, said, "It was like a threatening atmosphere where Mr. A threatened and threatened Mr. B."  



In response, the court judged, "Listening to Mr. C's statement, it is sufficiently acknowledged that Mr. A exercised the power of the crime of obstruction of business."



Mr. A also argued for a just act, but the court did not accept it. 



Judge Jeon said, "The fact that the degree of power exercised by Mr. A is not very significant is an advantage."



However, he said, "As a consumer, the crime of obstruction of business due to behavior that exceeds the limit under the pretext of legitimate protest is clearly distinguished." It can't be," he explained the reason for the sentencing.



At the same time, he added, “The fact that Mr. A was not forgiven by Mr. B and that Mr. B seemed to have suffered a considerable psychological shock were considered in the sentencing.” 



(Photo = Yonhap News)