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

On January 5, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 13:40 on January 13:40, 2016, in D restaurant where the Defendant was working as the victim C (the 52-year-old) of Busan, Busan, and the 52-year-old employee, and (b) on the other hand, made the alcohol while drinking. However, the Defendant would be aware of the instant victim’s “I wish to make the alcohol for the same year as that in which I would see, if I would like to do so.”

“In doing so, she interfered with the restaurant business of the victim of the volume of 20 minutes by force by force.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of the police statement protocol law to C

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 314 (Selection of Penalty) of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act with respect to the instant crime is that the Defendant had the same criminal record, and if so, the Defendant interfered with the business of the victim as above, and the quality of the crime is not less exceptionally.

However, the sentencing conditions in the records, such as the defendant's age, occupation, sex behavior, family relationship, motive and circumstance before and after the crime, etc. are considered and the sentence like the order is determined.