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

At around 00:50 on January 21, 2013, the Defendant: (a) 00:50, the Defendant, by force, obstructed the victim’s restaurant business by forcing other customers, who had been suffering from disturbance for about one hour, to take care of the fact that the victim E (the age of 27), who is the father of the above package food restaurant store, was demanded to leave the disturbance based on a mixed standard D in Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul, and repeatedly talked with the plenaryty, i.e., “I ambi., the gue. Ma. Ma. Ma. Ma. Ma,” and ii).

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of E;

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

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

1. As to the defense counsel’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the defendant alleged that he was in a state of mental disorder at the time of committing the crime in this case, the defendant’s defense counsel cannot be viewed as having reached a state of mental disorder at the time of committing the crime in light of various circumstances, such as the following: (a) the process of committing the crime acknowledged by the evidence mentioned above; (b) the means and method; (c) the defendant’s behavior before and after the crime; and (d) there is no objective evidence to prove that the defendant was in a state of mental disorder at the time of committing the crime; and (c) there is no objective evidence to prove