The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claim altered and added at the trial.

A. On March 2, 2011, the Plaintiff visited the D internal medical clinic working as an assistant nurse (hereinafter “instant hospital”) to undergo a scambling test in the above registry. In relation to the payment of the medical expenses, there was a conflict of opinion with the above nurse, etc. when the Plaintiff received a request from the above hospital nurse, etc., that “the Plaintiff is a patient of the next lowest income bracket, not a patient of the first lowest income bracket, and anesthesia, a WIG agent, should pay medical expenses as non-benefit part.”

(hereinafter “instant case”). (b)

On July 201, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Gyeongnam Medical Examination Conciliation Committee to the effect that “the Plaintiff incurred “closion and serum infection” due to anesthesia at the time of the examination of the relevant hospital,” and that “D, the president of the instant hospital, filed a complaint with the Plaintiff with the effect that “the Plaintiff interfered with the business of the hospital on the day of the instant case,” among July 201, 201,” “The Plaintiff interfered with D’s duties.”

C. When the Plaintiff was indicted on the charge of interference with business on August 19, 201, the Plaintiff filed an application for formal trial with the Changwon District Court regarding the summary order (201DaMa2145). On June 14, 2012, the said court rendered a judgment ordering the Plaintiff to suspend the sentence of a fine of KRW 700,000,00, by taking into account the Plaintiff’s partial statement and witness D’s legal statement as evidence, etc., as evidence, on the criminal facts that “the Plaintiff, on the day of the medical examination, had a conflict between the nurse and the Plaintiff, after undergoing an internal inspection on the day of the medical examination, was in conflict with each other, during the period from 15:0 to 17:0,000 of the date of the instant hospital’s payment of inspection fees.”

Accordingly, the plaintiff appealed to the Changwon District Court No. 2012No176, and the above court is the evidence that corresponds to the facts of prosecution on March 15, 2013.