2. 50,000 won where the defendant does not pay the above fine.

Defendant,

1. On May 7, 2012, from around 18:30 to 19:00, the fact that vehicle drivers who intend to enter the said third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third third

2. Between May 8, 2012 and 19:00, between May 8, 2012 and 18:30 to May 8, 2012, the victim’s third Deputy Commissioner’s business operation is obstructed by deceptive means in the same manner as the preceding paragraph;

3. On May 9, 2012, between around 18:30 to 19:00, the Defendant interfered with the business of the Defendant’s senior secretary general by means of the preceding and preceding paragraphs.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement by the prosecution concerning D;

1. Statement of the police statement concerning F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a investigative report (Attachment to a photograph of a dynamic image taken by the victim);

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

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

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

4. It is so decided as per Disposition for the reason under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act above.