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

1. Around April 7, 2016, the Defendant: (a) was unable to hear the method of drinking boomed from the injured party in the D cafeteria operated by the victim C, which was located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, around April 7, 2016; and (b) was able to take a brut bottle while taking a brust roll, which seems to be at the time of the injured party; and (c) was able to avoid disturbance for about 30 minutes, including following the table.

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

2. The Defendant damaged property at the above time, at the same place, the property owned by the victim was damaged by breaking a misunderstanding of the market price on the depositor by following the depositor owned by the victim for the foregoing reasons.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Application of the police statement protocol law to C

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 316 of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business), Article 366 of the Criminal Act, and the selection of fines for a crime;

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. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;