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

The defendant, from around 10:55 on August 21, 2015 to 11:40 on the same day, on a F bus stops located in Seo-gu Incheon Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Incheon, with iron bars (road 120cm x 73cm x 73cm) on the F bus in which the victim E is in operation, and the damaged person cannot board with the aforementioned iron bars because of the danger of the said steel systems, and whether the operation cannot be made while on board the bus.

“A bus shall be called “ and a bus shall be placed on the back of the bus and a bus shall be placed and the bus shall be placed on the bus, and the bus shall have been on the bus.

For about 50 minutes, six customers had obstructed the bus operation of the victimized person by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. A report on investigation (attaching photographs of a steel system);

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Article 314 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

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;

1. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under the main text of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, even though the Defendant and the defense counsel stated that the victim, a bus engineer, could not get on board with the steel system because he/she was at risk, the Defendant and the defense counsel acknowledged the fact that the bus with the aforementioned team was placed on the bus. However, there was no disturbance other than that, and at the time, there was sufficient time for passengers to go against 6-7 persons and set a steel system and there was no sufficient time for passengers to go on the steel system. Thus, there was no damage to the passengers, and thus, the Defendant’s act and force interfered with the victim’s business

and there was no intention to interfere with the business.

The argument is asserted.

Article 26 (1) 8 of the Passenger Transport Business Act, Article 44 (3) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, which provides for the matters to be observed by persons engaged in driving service of passenger transport service, shall be [Attachment 4].