At around 19:00 on June 7, 2015, the Defendant considered that any group among his/her employees was able to take an examination and bath about himself/herself, while counseling about the purchase of goods at 26 Esck 26 Esckes for the exchange and refund of the 31st floor in light of broad name, and that he/she was able to take an examination and bath about 20 to 30 minutes of the exchange and refund counter, and that he/she interfered with the business of the victim D by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol concerning E and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of D;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. A fine not exceeding 500,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,00 won per day) of the Criminal Act for the inducement of a workhouse;

1. Article 59 (1) of the Criminal Code of the Suspension of Sentence (see, e.g., Article 59 (1) of the Criminal Code (see, e., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da1248, Apr. 2, 2006);