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

On September 1, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year to imprisonment with prison labor for damage to public goods at Daejeon District Court on September 1, 2014, and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 12, 2014.

1. On February 21, 2014, at around 00:50, the Defendant interfered with the business of the Defendant: (a) on a “E” restaurant operated by the victim D in Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon; (b) provided the victim with a bath by having the victim bed with a large interest of “this e-mail, this e-mail, and this e-mail,” and (c) prevented customers who had entered the said restaurant through approximately 25 minutes of the disturbance from entering, thereby obstructing the victim’s restaurant business by force.

2. On February 21, 2014, at the above restaurant on February 21, 2015, the Defendant openly insultingd the victim by openly brupting the victim, who was a victim of the F District District of the Daejeon Police Station, who was called up after receiving a report, and recommended the Defendant to return home, and the Defendant, who was the owner of the said restaurant and the customer, etc., in the status of the said restaurant and the said customer, etc., expressed the victim’s hump with the larger interest called “Chose, fri, hump, and echep.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness D, G and H;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Before judgment: Application of the Daejeon District Court Decision 2014Ma1754 decided September 1, 2014, the Acts and subordinate statutes of the Final and Conclusive;

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) and Article 311 of the Criminal Act and the choice of fines for the crime;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

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

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

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

1. The defendant alleged that he was entitled to alcohol to D, and he was finitely defective, so there was no interference with his duties, and he forced a police officer without being notified of the finite principle, and thus, the illegality is dismissed.

2. We examine the judgment, and the defendant's defense is difficult to believe as it is in light of the following circumstances.