If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

1. On September 2, 201, around 06:00, the Defendant: (a) reported himself to the police on October 16, 2010 on the ground that he reported himself to the police as interference with his duties; (b) on September 2, 201, on the ground that he reported himself to the police on September 16, 201, the Defendant caused the damage of property to cut the front glass of the above restaurant and to have the amount equivalent to KRW 3.50,000 to the replacement cost.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the victim's above favorable interest.

2. On September 5, 201, at around 00:50, the Defendant: (a) found in the same restaurant as the preceding paragraph on September 5, 201; (b) provided that “the victim D was suspected of interfering with his/her business during a period; (c) provided that “I wish not to take any funeral service; and (d) repeated unloading of the document plastic bags on the customer, etc.; and (d) obstructed the victim’s restaurant business by force by avoiding disturbances between about 25 minutes, i.e., flying off, causing customers who were restaurants, thereby obstructing the victim’s restaurant business by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Each police statement concerning D;

1. A written arrest of a flagrant offender;

1. Photographs photographs of restaurants;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to receipts (the No. 11);

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 314 (1) 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 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. It is so decided as per Disposition for not less than Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.