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

On November 28, 2014, at around 09:20, the Defendant used a distance of about 400 meters for the following reasons: (a) the M Bus operated by the victim C (hereinafter referred to as “C”) in the vicinity of the Seocheon-gu, Young-gu, Young-gu; (b) operated a vehicle in the column of the Defendant’s driving to the right side of the road; and (c) operated a distance of about 400 meters for the above victim’s bus to the right side of the road; (d) repeated the vehicle from the right side of the vehicle to prevent the change of the bus line to the right side; and (e) obstructed the course of the bus.

The Defendant continuously obstructed the course of the bus in the above way so that the bus (the first bus line) is trying to make a right-hand way in the direction of the bend line, and the Defendant interfered with the course of the second bus in such a way as above.

Thus, the defendant interfered with the operation of the victim by force over about 12 minutes, such as getting off about 15 passengers, moving to another bus because the bus of the victim is no longer operated.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D and C;

1. Examination protocol of police suspect regarding D;

1. Each statement of D and C;

1. On-site photographs;

1. A report on investigation (a bus booms relative investigation);

1. Application of the CDA-related Acts and subordinate statutes

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

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

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the claim of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act that the defendant attempted to turn to the left on the bus side of the bus as indicated in the judgment of the defendant at the time of this case, or followed the bus to hold the bus responsible for supporting the defendant's vehicle's launch, and they did not interfere with the course of the bus.

Modern, this Court has duly adopted and investigated.