If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

1. Although the Defendant: (a) requested the victim C to perform his/her interior works, the Defendant had terminated the contract due to the difference between the two partners and the victim’s opinion.

On March 3, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 16:00 on March 3, 2016, at the opening where the injured party D was in the course of performing the interior construction, on the ground that the injured party claimed labor cost, material cost, etc. due to the construction preparation against the Defendant, the Defendant: (b) stated that “the contract should be entered and the down payment should not be made; (c) the Defendant should issue the amount of damages due to the termination of the contract; and

C farch fluorch fluorch fluorch;

C. The Mesium expressed that gue is obtained and that gue should be raised, and that the victim's Mesium interfered with the victim's Mesium construction work by force between about 40 minutes.

2. The Defendant, at the time, at the place specified in paragraph 1, has a part of the construction work, who is a part of the victim C, is not a bitch bitch.

C. The victim publicly insultingd the victim by openly speaking as “the fluent gushes should be obtained and grow up.”

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's legal statement (as at the date of the second public trial, in the case);

1. Each police statement protocol against C and E;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (Attachment of photographs submitted by victims related to interference with business);

1. Relevant Article of the Act and the choice of punishment for the crime;

(a) point of interference with business: Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act;

(b) The point of insult: Selection of a fine under Article 311 of the Criminal Act;

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. Although the sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the Defendant’s act cannot be used for the crime, the Defendant’s act is contrary to and divided in the trial process, and the Defendant’s confessions to the crime is still young age, and the Defendant’s act can be improved sufficiently through the result of the instant criminal punishment and related civil litigation.

It seems that there is no past record of criminal punishment.