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

The Defendant is an election campaign worker for the F candidate who belongs to the 20th National Assembly member D constituency E.

No person shall disturb the order of a speech or interview at an open place, or interfere with the proceeding of a speech or interview by violence, threat, or any other means at the meeting of a political party.

Nevertheless, at around 11:52 on April 2, 2016, the Defendant: (a) 11:52, the “H restaurant” located in G, and (b) the Defendant, on the grounds that the J candidate, who belongs to G, made a speech to the E-candidate’s seat on the front side of the E-candidate’s seat in the U.S. vehicle, voiced that the Defendant would stop the speech to the J candidate’s seat; and (c) obstructed the Defendant’s campaign speech by taking advantage of the microphone lines used for the J candidate’s speech.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the witness J and K;

1. Each prosecutor's statement to K and J;

1. The police statement of K;

1. CCTV-recording images;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report internal investigation (Attachment of field photographs);

1. Article 256 (3) 1 (l) and Article 104 of the Public Official Election Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and the selection of punishment;

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

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the argument was the fact that the Defendant requested that the Defendant return the direction of the spacker to the J candidate pro rata vehicles, but did not sound the speech to cease or extract the microphone lines.

2. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the court can fully recognize the fact that the Defendant, as stated in the facts constituting the crime, has obstructed speech by gathering microphone lines being used by the J candidate and stopping speech, as stated in the judgment below.

Therefore, the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion is not accepted.

According to CCTV images, the defendant walked at around 11:52:28 on a large scale, and immediately, the vehicle of the J candidate.