1. On December 7, 2012, the Defendant interfered with business: (a) around 21:55, on the street in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the victim E, the owner of the said D business, stated that the cost of the street set up by setting up an excessive work would go on the road; (b) the victim E, who was the owner of the said D business, would be “dypted with a funeral service on the road”; and (c) caused the disturbance to avoid disturbance, such as carping off the street, thereby interfering with the victim’s work for about 30 minutes.

2. The Defendant: (a) took the aforementioned time, place, and reported and sent out a police box to the victim G (the age of 45) who was employed by the F police box; (b) took a bath that “this Chewing sway, public officials ought to view, gymnas, embs, dys, and argue such as dynas, and argument,” and insulting the victim openly.

Summary of Evidence

1. Court statement of the defendant (the second court date);

1. Application of each police protocol of statement to E and G;

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (Interference with Business, Selection of Fine) and Article 311 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts;

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

1. Penalty of one million won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act (50,000 won per day);

1. Article 59 (1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., reflectiveness, beginning crime, and the circumstances of this case);