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

The Defendant jointly with C on April 4, 2015, from around 13:30 to around 14:30 of the same day from around the same day, and on the grounds that the victim was in bad condition at the F cafeteria operated by the victim E in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City from around 14:30 of the same day, it was difficult for the Defendant to avoid disturbance, such as making a string by cutting the string through a string, shouldering the string of the spawn and the spawn of the spawn, and passing the noise.

Accordingly, the Defendant jointly with the above C interfered with the above restaurant business of the victimized person for about one hour by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E and G;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officer in G;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. E statements;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. The pertinent Article of the Criminal Act and Articles 314(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts [the defendant and his/her defense counsel] asserted that the defendant and his/her defense counsel failed to hold his/her body properly in the process of working in the drunken area, and thus pushed off the table by falling off the ground of the test, but there was no fact that the defendant and his/her defense counsel partly cut off the balance of the drinking branch on the table table, and there was no fact that the defendant and his/her defense counsel did not take the bath or sound at the victim's restaurant.

However, the appearance of the Defendant and C, as shown in on-site photographs (No. 27 pages of the evidence record) taken by the police at the time of their dispatch to the site, and the appearance of the Defendant and C, such as a crym or a crym or a crym or a cm or a cm or a cm or a s

Considering the contents of G’s statement in this court and investigative agency, and the contents of the statement by the investigation agency and the victim’s statement relatively consistent up to this court, the above evidence reveals that criminal facts of the crime of interference with the business in its judgment are sufficiently recognized. Thus, the above assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel is unacceptable.

1. The Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;