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

On February 4, 2017, at around 10:0, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s restaurant operation work by preventing customers who wish to enter the said restaurant from entering the restaurant by avoiding the disturbance between about 40 minutes, including: (a) the victim’s “D” restaurant operated by Seodaemun-gu Seoul (50) and the Defendant who intends to smoke in the restaurant under the influence of alcohol; and (b) the victim intending to refrain from smoking in the restaurant; and (c) the victim intending to talk with the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a criminal investigation report (related to hearing statements of suspects E) and a criminal investigation report (referring to hearing statements of victims and witnesses);

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

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

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

1. In light of the fact that the criminal act of this case was committed for the same kind of crime as the sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, not only several times, but also during the period of the same repeated crime, the criminal liability is unlimited, the defendant reflects his mistake, the defendant does not want the punishment of the defendant by mutual consent with the victim, the defendant committed the crime of this case 10 days prior to the expiration of the repeated crime period without being punished as the same crime during the repeated crime period, and other sentencing conditions indicated in the records, such as the defendant's age, sexual behavior, health status, etc., shall be determined as the sentence as ordered.