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

The defendant is a person who purchases and operates a B-IX car produced by Hyundai Motor Company in the name of Dong C.

On April 19, 2012, the Defendant: (a) requested repair of engine noise, etc. of the said car to the Gunsan Service Center of the 676 Hyundai Motor Co., Ltd., (hereinafter “Modern Motor Co., Ltd.”); (b) on April 19, 2012, the employees of the Service Center came to have a complaint on the ground that D was private phone without the Defendant’s understanding while running a car trial; (c) from April 20, 2012 to June 30, 2012, the head office of the Seocho-gu, Seoul, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul (E) Customer Center of Hyundai Motor Vehicle (02-3464-114), and (d) notified the head office of Seocho-gu, Seoul, the head office of Hyundai Motor Vehicle Service Center (02-3271-205) as the head office of Yongsan-gu, Seoul, and (d) notified the head of Neigi-do, who was the head of the Service Center’s.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. The current status of customer call water A;

1. A report on the contents related to the progress of a high-priced X customer complaint, and a report on the progress of a high-priced X customer complaint;

1. The current status of counseling at the Gunsan Service Center, the current status of counseling at the head office of Yang-dong, and the current status of counseling at the customers' center;

1. Investigation Report (general) - Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes attached to a statement of present status of counseling;

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 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant alleged that the crime was not committed because there was no purpose of interfering with the business, and thus, did not constitute a crime. However, the Defendant’s assertion that the crime was not guilty is likely to interfere with the business in establishing the crime of interference with business.