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

On March 17, 2017, around 16:40, the Defendant entered into the Korea Consumer Safety Center in Daegu-gu, Seogu in order to request the Defendant to file a civil petition and to take protective measures in which the inside company is frozen and frozen.

However, this paper argues that the Defendant’s “n't n’t n’t n’t n’t n’t n’t n’t n’t n’t n’t n’t n’t n’t n’t n’t n’t n’t n’t n’t n’t n’t n’t n’t.e.,

“The Defendant of the defect, “,” was found to have scarshed, scarshed, scarshed, scarshed, or scarshed, and scarshed, as soon as possible.

“...............”

Therefore, it is the same that the defendant will not be a drunk conversation.

The victim's "low" is responsible for the safety of citizens, and it is not clear of the thickness of the customer.

B. The Defendant demanded to leave 5 to 6 times, such as the liquor tax required.

However, from around 17:10 on the same day, the defendant did not leave about 30 minutes and did not refuse the victim's request for withdrawal without justifiable reasons.

Summary of Evidence

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. C’s statement;

1. Occurrence of a case against which the eviction is refused, and arrest report;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (field investigation, etc.), internal investigation reports (record 17 pages);

1. Article 319 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 319 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines for the crime, and the selection of fines;

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. Determination as to the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under the main sentence of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which bear the costs of lawsuit

1. The Defendant and his defense counsel first entered the E station to request protective measures, so the Defendant was entitled to money in the customer safety center, and the Defendant was able to take a desire for service personnel or interfere with the service personnel’s work.