Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

1. At around 05:30 on August 31, 2014, the Defendant interfered with business: (a) repeatedly demanded “E” under the direct control of the victim “D” located in Syan-gu Syan-gu Syan-si, Syan-si, Syan-si, Syan-si, which caused the Defendant’s damage to the Defendant’s credit card magic, and caused the disturbance to his employees F and Nando by raising the words “com sym,” and continuously sought money from G on the ground that the Plaintiff and his employees did not sell the Defendant’s symbling in the said store at around 06:20 on the same day on the same day on the same day on the ground that “I would not sell the symbling,” and that I interfere with the Defendant’s sales by force, such as interfering with the purchase of other customers before the syming.

2. Around 06:30 of the same day as indicated in the above Paragraph (1) above, the Defendant publicly insultd the victim by openly speaking the victim at the victim’s location where the victim I, who was a policeman belonging to the H District Police Station in the Gyeonggiyang-gu Police Station, in receipt of a report related to interference with his/her duties, arrested the Defendant as a flagrant offender and let him/her attend the patrol team, on the ground that he/she would take the Defendant on the part of the victim, who was a policeman belonging to the H District Police Station in the Gyeonggi-gu Police Station in charge of obstruction of duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the police statement of I;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 311 of the Criminal Act, Article 311 of the Criminal Act, and the selection of fines for the crime;

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. The reason why the sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act Article 334(1) of the provisional payment order is based on the fact that G, which can be viewed as the actual victim of obstruction of business, stated that he/she does not want the punishment against the defendant in this Court.