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

At around 10:30 on January 1, 2014, the Defendant: (a) at a restaurant operated by the Victim C (L, 38 years of age) located in Ulsan-gu B, Ulsan-gu; (b) it was impossible for the Defendant to send his female-friendly job offers D to himself/herself as the day of the above restaurant; and (c) it appears that D was born as the day of the above restaurant; and (d) the Defendant got out of the Defendant, “I are the head of the said restaurant, I are the head of the said team, I are the head of the team, and I are the head of the said team, and I are the

On January 1, 2014, at around 12:40, the Defendant: (a) entered the said restaurant; (b) performed drinking alcohol to make the customers, and (c) prevented them from entering the said restaurant by having the customers enter the said restaurant for about 20 minutes from around 13:00 on the same day, such as “a sprinke is broken,” “a sprinke is broken,” “a sprinke is broken,” “a sprinke is going to go to the next sprink,” and “a sprinke is to die,” and “a sprinke is to die,” and “a sprinke is not to enter the said restaurant for about 20 minutes.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the victim's 15,000 won or more at the market price and interfered with the victim's cafeteria business by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of the written estimate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business) for criminal facts and the selection of a fine for negligence (the point of interference with business)

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

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

1. Although the defendant committed the crime of this case during the period of suspension of execution under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, there are many records of punishment for similar violence, there is no direct violence on the body of the victim in the crime of this case, and the method and degree of interference with business.