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

1. At around 13:10 on January 19, 2015, the Defendant interfered with his duties: (a) sought a D kindergarten operated by the victim C in Ansan-si B, and (b) took a bath to E on the grounds that the Defendant’s wife, who works as the teacher, has suspended the Defendant’s credit card; and (c) took a bath to E on the grounds that the Defendant’s wife’s husband’s father, at this point, suspended the Defendant’s credit card; and (d) the said kindergarten teacher’s member who speaks, “I will be able to see the case......................, the above year of 14:0, the Defendant got off the Plaintiff’s voice from the time when the young children were able to normally engage in kindergarten activities such as lowering, etc., thereby hindering the victim’s business operation by force.

2. On January 19, 2015, the Defendant of the obstruction of performance of official duties: (a) at the above D kindergarten; (b) received 112 reports by committing the crime described in paragraph (1); and (c) sent to the scene by police officers, such as Masung Police Station G, etc., the Defendant: (a) continuously breading the police kids; (b) “Iskhshshshshshshshshshshshshshshshshshshshshshshshshshshshshshshshshshshshshshshshshshshshshshshshsnshsnsnnsnnshhs to arrest the Defendant as a flagrant offender for the obstruction of business;

Summary of Evidence

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. The police statement of E and F;

1. Application of CCTV-faging statutes;

1. Articles 314 (1) and 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

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

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

1. Determination on the application of the sentencing guidelines for the reasons of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act: there is no O crime record, and damage to police officers.