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

1. On December 25, 2016, from around 03:00 to around 05:00 of the same day, the Defendant was unable to avoid disturbance for about 2 hours, including, but not limited to, drinking alcohol within the “EM” in the operation of the victim D (37 aged) located on the Incheon Gyeyang-gu and the second floor of the Incheon Gyeyang-gu, and drinking alcohol to his/her employees, “the same year as the weather and the walk”. The Defendant was unable to avoid disturbance for about 2 hours by having the employees take a bath at the bottom of the table, putting the alcohol on the floor of the table, putting the other customers at a large sound that leads to the said customers.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the victim's main business by force.

2. The Defendant destroyed property by destroying property, on the date and time as indicated in paragraph 1, and on the grounds that employees were frightd as bad, the Defendant destroyed the property owned by the non-merchanter of the market price by flapsing up to the flapsing of the victim D, the owner of the business at the relevant location, with the flapsing of the flapsing, and flapsing of the flapsing of the flaps, thereby damaging the flapsing of the fla

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to F and G;

1. A written statement;

1. Photographs damaged by each property, on-site CCTV photographs, CCTV images, CDs, voice recording files;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 316 of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business), Article 366 of the Criminal Act, and the selection of fines for a crime;

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

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

1. In light of the fact that the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case with the reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, even though he had been punished several times by violence, etc., it is not good that the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case. However, the fact that the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case while being committed each of the crimes of this case, and his mistake is divided, that the defendant agreed with the victims, and that he was receiving treatment due to a yellow disorder, etc. are considered as favorable to the defendant.