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

1. At around 14:00 on January 26, 2016, the injured Defendant requested the victim E (the aged 42 and South) who is the lessee operating the Carca in the first floor of the facility where the upper water level of the water level located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, and DC service was removed, to cooperate with the victim E (the aged 42 and South) who is the lessee operating the carca on one floor, but the victim found the victim on the ground that the victim was closed and out of the door, and caused the injury requiring medical treatment for about two weeks on the ground that the victim was found to have taken one time the face of the victim's drinking, and the chest was pushed down in the elbbow with the breast, and turned it over the floor, and caused the injury requiring medical treatment for about two weeks.

2. On January 26, 2016, from 14:00 to 14:10 on May 26, 2016, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s automobile maintenance work for about 10 minutes by force by force, such as: (a) continuing to drive away the victim E (year 42, south) within the “Dcar services”; (b) threatening the victim’s eye, and doing bathing.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. Photographs of damaged part E of the victim;

1. On-site CCTV CDs;

1. The written diagnosis of injury (the term "influence of business operation" includes not only interference with the performance of business itself, but also interference with the management of business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Do3767, May 14, 1999; 2007Do6754, Apr. 8, 2010). In establishing the crime of interference with business, it does not require that the result of interference with business would actually occur, and it is sufficient that the risk of interference with business would occur (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Do3231, Mar. 29, 200; 2008Do4228, Mar. 25, 2010). Therefore, even if the victim was actually maintained at the time of performing the same act as stated in the judgment of the Defendant, even if the victim was not a motor vehicle, it may cause interference with or interference with the operation of the car center by the above act.