If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100.

On February 20, 2016, from around 02:20 to 03:10 on the same day, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s restaurant business by force of approximately 50 minutes by avoiding disturbance, such as sound and abusiveing, which the victim refuses to perform her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her part.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. C’s statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (to hear statements by reference E phone);

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 314 (Selection of Penalty) of the Criminal Act;

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

1. In light of various circumstances, such as the circumstance leading up to the crime acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted by the court, the means and method of the crime, and the Defendant’s behavior before and after the crime, determination of the Defendant’s mental and physical disorder under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things under the influence of alcohol at the time to make a decision.