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

1. Around 08:00 on October 2, 2013, the Defendant interfered with his/her business: (a) on the ground that he/she does not have his/her mobile phone before the Suwon-gu Suwon-si, Suwon-si, the Defendant: (b) left the victim D (31 years of age, south) who is an employee; (c) left the cell phone; (d) opened the door ccct v confirmation; (e) opened the door cct verification; and (e) opened the victim’s sound, and opened the victim “it is necessary to confirm and contact the police officer,” and (e) brought the 203 key of the Defendant accommodation, and brought the 303 key to the Defendant, and brought him/her to the Defendant, and (e) opened the cttV to the floor, and opened the ctrick with the victim’s driver’s license, and (e) opened the 10 minutes of business by force: 20 hours of the victim, and 20 hours of the customer.

2. At around 1:50 on October 201, 2013, the Defendant damaged public documents and caused damage to its utility by checking whether the statement was made after being examined as the Defendant’s status for the same reason as set forth in the above 1. Paragraph (1) at the criminal affairs and offices of the Young-gu Suwon Police Station of 1196 Suwon-dong, Suwon-dong, Suwon-dong, Suwon-si, and examining whether the statement was appropriately recorded.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Written statements of D;

1. A report on investigation (the suspect's words and behavior);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the interrogation protocol destroyed;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 141 (1) of the Criminal Act (Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (Article 314 (1) of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Crimes) (Article 31 of the same Act

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

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

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act include the fact that the defendant agreed with the victim D after the issuance of the summary order, and that the defendant has no record of punishment.