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

1. On August 30, 2014, from around 18:55 to 19:25 of the same day, the Defendant: (a) at the entrance of the entrance of the Dongdaemun-gu branch in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu; (b) on the ground that the Defendant was unable to enter the said entrance, and (c) on the ground that he was unable to enter the victim D or any other employees, etc., the Defendant provided a bath to the employees, such as the victim, etc.; (d) opened the entrance of the said entrance several times; and (e) prevented the Defendant from being exposed to the said entrance at the entrance of the entrance of the Dongdaemun-gu branch in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul; and (e) prevented the Defendant from entering the said entrance; and (e) interfere with

2. The Defendant assaulted the victim, at the time and place of Paragraph 1, such as: (a) the victim E, a security guard, who was a security guard, prevented the Defendant from drinking the disturbance as above; (b) the victim’s back to the back to the back to the back to the end; and (c) the victim’s back to the back to the back to the back to the end.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to D and E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on the confirmation of weather identity of visual images;

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of a fine for the crime, the choice of a penalty, and the selection of a fine for the crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. As the Defendant asserts that there exists a mental fissionation in regard to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the judgment-convenor and the diagnosis submitted by the Defendant appears to have been treated as having a mental state. However, in light of various circumstances, such as the background of the crime, the means and method of the crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the crime, etc., it does not appear that the Defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the crime of this case.