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

The defendant is a person who has entered into a contract for C Apartment at the time of strike.

On December 3, 2013, from around 12:20 to 13:20 on the same day, the Defendant, at the location of another customer, under a contract, an apartment in the apartment sales office of D 301 at D 301 at the time of the strike, saying, “The apartment under a contract is a fraud contract.” The Defendant interfered with the victim E’s apartment sales business, which is the head of the headquarters of the apartment sales office of the above apartment unit for about one hour.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of witness E in the fourth protocol of the trial;

1. F’s written statement of prosecutorial assistant report prepared by the prosecutor’s office of F [In light of the above evidence, the victim provided sufficient explanation to the defendant at the time of the instant case on the government policy related to tax reduction or exemption, conditions of visit to the relevant apartment house, conditions of occupancy, etc., and the defendant repeatedly demanded the victim to perform the contract in accordance with the conditions required by him even though he knew of such circumstances. Despite the victim’s proposal, the victim did not accept the above assertion, it is acknowledged that he obstructed the victim’s sales business by raising the victim’s speech and behavior to the effect that the apartment sale was a fraudulent sale at a time within the sales office, and there is no special circumstance where the condition of the apartment sale in this case was changed unfairly disadvantageously, there is no room to view the defendant’s act as unlawful acts in this case

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