If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

On July 22, 2012, the Defendant entered a restaurant called Daegu Northern-gu B on July 16, 2012, and ordered a Meap, which does not exist in the Meap, and interfered with the victim’s restaurant business by force, such as following a table and a marb, on the ground that an employee C (V, 50 years of age) who is the victim demands the pre-paid payment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the police protocol law to C

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

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

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion of the provisional payment order under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant alleged to the effect that, at the time of committing the instant crime, the disease was in a state of mental disorder or mental disorder. However, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant was suffering from mental illness at the time of committing the instant crime, and in light of the course and process of committing the instant crime, method and method, the Defendant’s act before and after committing the instant crime, there was no ability to discern things due to mental illness

Since it seems that the defendant was in a state or weak condition, the above assertion by the defendant is rejected.