If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

[2012 high-level 480] From February 28, 2012 to 01:28 of the same day, the Defendant took a bath to the Embrecing point of the victim D’s operation in the city from around 00:28 to around 01:28 of the same day, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s bar business by force by: (a) having the victim and the other customers who were in the main place of the week, she laid the beer’s disease by cutting the beer and cutting the microbeer, cutting the stringer, falling short of the drinking value; and (b) having the victim’s bar business by force.

[2012 high-speed 481] On November 20, 2011, the Defendant destroyed the above signboards worth 500,000, the market value of which is owned by the victim, such as breaking an inner light, etc. by re-emitting a signboard that was set up on the front of the said main point under the influence of alcohol (a 60cm, length 100cm) with a light set up in front of the main point of the operation of the Victim G, which was located in F at large 0:40 on November 20, 201.

Summary of Evidence

[2012 High Court Decision 480]

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to D or I;

1. Photographs of the damaged field (2012 high-level 481);

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Protocol of the police statement concerning G;

1. Application of the written estimate for damage;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business), Article 366 of the Criminal Act, and selection of fines for the crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;