Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

On September 29, 2016, around 04:30 on September 29, 2016, the Defendant “E” operated by the victim D (V, 45 years of age) in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, called “E” to other customers under the influence of alcohol, and regardless of the police officer’s solicitation to return home who was dispatched to the victim upon the victim’s report, the Defendant, despite the police officer’s solicitation to return home, is a large amount of Neas to the person who had been in this NA,

who filed a report,

On the other hand, once you call, why we see;

Ccp's bath theory, and for about one hour, the disturbance interfered with the victim's restaurant business by force by avoiding disturbance.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Statement made by the police against the defendant;

1. Written statements of D and F [The defendant and his defense counsel are not guilty because the defendant did not interfere with the victim's business. However, the obstruction of business to establish the obstruction of business does not have to actually occur, but there is a risk of causing interference with business. In light of the circumstances leading to the victim's 112 report, the situation leading up to the victim's 112 report, and the situation leading up to the defendant's refusal to return home by the police officer dispatched by the defendant, and the time of money in the victim's place of business, etc., the defendant's act is deemed sufficient to interfere with

Application of Statutes

1. Article 314 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;