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

At around 22:00 on July 21, 2018, the Defendant: (a) entered a “D” restaurant that the victim C (n, 50 years of age) in Tong Young-si B works as an employee; (b) was able to see that the brea, which was previously purchased while drinking, would not drink due to solid booming; and (c) was able to see the statement that he would come from the boom, and (d) 10 minutes of the disturbance, such as “I will do so by solitary, if I will do so, I will do so, or will only do it,” and it was difficult for the Defendant to bring about a disturbance for about 10 minutes.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's restaurant business by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Some statements concerning the suspect examination protocol of the defendant;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning police statements to E;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act of the choice of punishment, the selection of fines (including the form and degree of interference with business (in the light of time, place, time, etc.), the cafeteria of the judgment does not want to be punished against the defendant, and the criminal records of the defendant (including the criminal committed during the period of repeated crime, the criminal records of the same kind, the criminal records once the same criminal records, and the majority of the previous

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;