If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

1. On July 14, 2015, around 14:30, the injured Defendant found the “E” clothes operated by the victim D(W, 47 years old) of the victim D (W, 143) of the C building A in Ansan-si, Dong-dong, Dong-si, and around 14:30 on July 14, 2015, the injured Defendant tried to see the victim’s desire and refuse to do so, and to see the less part of the victim’s hand, and to see the victim’s hand, and continuously led the victim’s arms while moving to the outside part of the victim’s horse with the victim.

As a result, the Defendant inflicted bodily injury on the victim, such as salt pansty, tensions, etc. in need of approximately two weeks of treatment.

2. The Defendant: (a) at the time, at the time, at the place specified in paragraph (1), the Defendant: (b) made the victim D shop F enter the store by creating a string atmosphere; (c) made the flue customer F out of the fright; and (d) made the victim 10 to 15 minutes of 10 to 15 minutes of the brue, such as “the brue, opening, life, and sculing” to the victim in the store; and (c) prevented the victim from entering the store by having the brue.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's clothes sales business by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness D, F and G;

1. A medical certificate of injury, or photograph;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the investigation report (CCTV verification);

1. Relevant Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of injury), Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business), and the selection of fines for the crime;

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

1. The defendant and his/her defense counsel's assertion regarding the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order alleged that there was no injury to the victim as stated in the judgment of the defendant, but with regard to the circumstances leading up to the injury and the injury injury.