Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

On July 28, 2017, at around 18:40, the Defendant: (a) prevented a person who, while under the influence of alcohol, ordered the said restaurant from smoking, from smoking tobacco while taking a food order; (b) prevented the victim from smoking tobacco; and (c) caused the damage to the victim of the instant restaurant in Seodaemun-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant restaurant”); and (d) led the victim to drinking tobacco, and (e) dissipating the cigarette.

Doz. Doz. Doz.

The victim’s restaurant business affairs were obstructed for about 20 minutes by force by putting the victim’s and the victim’s room room room, etc. on a large scale, and by preventing the business from being operated by avoiding the disturbance, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Entry of the defendant in part in the first trial record;

1. Each legal statement of witness D and F;

1. Report on the criminal place and the investigation result;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing the issuance of a business report and the disposition of reported cases;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

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

1. The summary of the argument is that the Defendant was carrying tobacco not attached to the instant restaurant, and it did not interfere with the Defendant’s business by taking the victim’s bath as stated in the facts charged.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of this case, namely, ① the victim was a customer who was eating on other tables at the time of the instant case, but, under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant did not have any oil, roasting on the ground that he was roasting a large number of roassing on the instant restaurant, and roasting on the ground that the Defendant changed to a large number of roassing on the instant restaurant.

Accordingly, the defendant tried to smoke tobacco and sprink it, and the defendant expressed a desire to do so.

Therefore, there was a door to prevent the Defendant from entering and leaving the restaurant of this case.

Then, the defendant is the door.