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

1. On July 31, 2017, from around 23:00 to around 0:35, 2017, the Defendant: (a) the Defendant: (b) took a bath at the victim C (n, 56 years of age) in the singing room operated by the victim C (n, e.g., the victim 56 years of age) on the ground that he/she refused to follow the Defendant’s drinking; (c) the Defendant: (d) the victim sing out the disturbance and sing down the disturbance; and (d) the victim demanded that he/she do so at the end of time; (d) the Defendant continued to take a bath before the singer; and (d

It interfered with the operation of the victim's singing room by "making a door closed," and thereby obstructing the operation of the victim's singing room.

2. On August 1, 2017, at around 00:35, the Defendant: (a) recommended the Defendant to return to the Defendant, that the Defendant would have a bitch f of a bitch bitch f, a victim of the instant police box sent to the scene after receiving a report by 112; (b) the Defendant recommended the Defendant to return to the Defendant; and (c) the victims of the instant bitch f of a bitch bitch f, a victim of the instant police box, G, a victim of the instant accident; and (d) the Defendant recommended the victims of the instant accident to have a shot bitch f of a bitch bitch;

200 20 20 20 202

One time is the age of 46 years, N. S. S. S. Doz. Doz. Doz.

The police can be seen as a civil test, and franch franch

C. The expression “C.” was expressed as “C.”

Accordingly, the defendant insultd the victims openly.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the police statement related to C and G;

1. Each complaint filed by H and I, and a written statement;

1. Application of the Cd legislation

1. Article 314(1) and Article 311 of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business) and Article 311 of the same Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, and the selection of each fine;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

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

1. Taking into account the following factors: The reason why the sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act was imposed; the degree and degree of insult; and the agreement with the victim who interfered with the business; and