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

1. On November 13, 2015, from around 19:50 to 20:50, the Defendant: (a) took a bath to the kitchen employees, etc. using a large voice, i.e., the Defendant: (b) was protruding out in the “E” restaurant where the victim D in the Special Self-Governing City of Sejong was running his/her business; and (c) was sprinking out with the Defendant’s employees, etc., with the Defendant’s humbk for the instant weather.

After that, the employees were allowed to leave the restaurant, but the Defendant refused to do so, and freshed in the cooling house directly to the floor of the restaurant, sited in the cafeteria, and take a bath for more than one hour to the employees of the restaurant, thereby obstructing the victim's restaurant business by force.

2. On November 13, 2015, the Defendant, at around 20:58 around the same place as the foregoing paragraph (1) and publicly insulting the victims by openly insulting the victims by referring to the circumstances where the F box of the Sejong Police Station was affiliated with G, and the slope H, “this chrop chrop” to the police box of the Sejong Police Station, who was dispatched to the site after receiving a report of interference with the duties at the same place as above paragraph (1).

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Written statements prepared in D;

1. A complaint filed for the preparation of G and H;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on investigation reporting;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 311 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense (a point of interference with business) of the relevant Act;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act for the ordinary concurrent crimes (the punishment prescribed for the insult of a victim G with heavier punishment between the crimes of insult and the crimes of insult);

1. Selection of each alternative fine for punishment;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

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

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

1. The assertion;

A. There was no risk of interference with business since 20:00,000 time after the business is closed, since there was no customer other than the defendant.

(b) does not constitute a threat of interference with business.

2. According to the evidence of the judgment, the Defendant expressed his/her desire to ASEAN, etc. at around 19:50 on November 13, 2015, to be outside the restaurant by stating that the Defendant is “the starting and the opening of the city”.