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

The defendant is the mother of the victim C(M, 49 years of age).

The defendant did not properly win his parents, but married with his will, and got back his uniform by other siblings.

In other words, there was a misunderstanding and awareness of religion.

1. On June 4, 2018, around 08:59, the Defendant interfering with his/her duties called the Victim D in Busan Jung-gu and the E member operated by his/her husband to the nurse F, etc. “In the shift of the year from our father, Doar, changed the year from the day of death, the day of death, the day of the Doar, the day of the Doar, and the day of the Doar.”

It is whether parents do so abuse or abuse.

Woman, Woman, Woman

From around 12:30 on the same day, she committed “nicking,” thereby obstructing the business of the victim’s hospital by force, thereby obstructing the victim’s hospital operation by putting about about 10 nurses and patients to hear.

2. Around 15:00 on June 15, 2018, the Defendant: (a) opened a door before the victim’s house located in Seo-gu Busan Metropolitan City on the ground that it does not open a door before the victim’s house located in Seo-gu, Busan Metropolitan City; and (b) opened the door that many neighbors, such as H, who are neighboring the victim, and pedestrians.

Along about 30 minutes of the Doar Youth, Ma, Ma, Ma, h. Ch. h. h. h.), publicly insulting the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made with respect to C, H and F;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on photographic photographs of mobile phones, Kakao Stockholm photographs, and 112 reported details;

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business, the selection of fines) concerning facts constituting an offense, and Article 311 of the Criminal Act (the point of insult and the selection of fines);

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

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

1. The crime of this case for the reason of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act with regard to the order of provisional payment is that the defendant called several times to a member of the National Assembly operated by his/her father and descendant to interfere with his/her business and made the victim’s abusive language, and the nature of the crime is not good.