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

On July 23, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 16:00 to 17:00, at the “Ecafeteria” operated by the victim D (the age of 54) of the Daegu Dong-gu, Daegu-gu, the Defendant: (b) went off and was under the influence of drinking and drinking; (c) the Defendant took a heated and heated heated drinking, or heatedly heatedly heated,” and took a bath to the Defendant; (d) return to the restaurant; (c) spits down the floor of the floor; and (d) took a bath to the customers who speak back on the side; and (d) interfered with the restaurant business by force of the victim for about one hour, such as having frightened and frighted with the test expenses and collected the chair.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on witness D's legal statement;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. The portion not guilty of Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act for the detention in a workhouse;

1. The Defendant: (a) around 20:00 to 21:00 on August 6, 2012, 2012, at the “Ecafeteria” operated by the victim D, the Defendant: (b) was required by the victim to take a booming and spiting down three diseases in the form of drinking, and (c) to take the floor on the floor, thereby obstructing the victim’s restaurant business by force for about one hour, such as: (a) the Defendant spiting and spiting three diseases in the form of drinking; (b) the victim; (c) the victim “Ise heated and heated in the form of weather; and (d) the customer took a bath to “Ise as soon as Ise frith and drink,” and (c) the customer spawd with the victim’s restaurant business by force.

2. The Defendant stated that this Court does not memory this part of the facts charged.

The defendant seems to have experienced a yellow disorder, depression, etc. due to the existence of alcohol.

In accordance with this part of the facts charged, the defendant's interrogation protocol of the police officer (in case of investigation record 3:3: 21) and the police's statement of the defendant D (in case of investigation record 3: 47 of investigation record) can be seen as evidence.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, witness D.