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

From around 20:00 on May 8, 2015 to around 20:30 on the same day, the Defendant, within the “E” restaurant operated by the victim D (n, 52 years old) located in Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Nam-gu, as a matter of compensation for the damage of the heart signboard in front of the restaurant, had the victim interfered with the victim’s legitimate restaurant business by force, and at the same time, the victim interfered with the victim’s legitimate restaurant business by using force, and at the same time, had the victim 21 days of medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. To enter each copy of a medical certificate and each copy of a medical treatment record;

1. Application of each statute of the filming of photographs and photographic materials;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business) and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

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

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the Defendant guilty of the crime of provisional payment order: (a) recognizes that he/she obstructed the victim’s restaurant business by making the table table of the restaurant operated by the victimized person, but denies the charges by asserting that the victimized person did not incur any injury to the victim, on the ground that he/she did not conform to the above table.

The following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence of the ruling, i.e., the victim was assaulted by the defendant against the police officer dispatched on the day of the case.

A statement has been made (No. 10 pages of the investigation record) and thereafter on May 15, 2015, the police investigation was made, and the defendant made a statement to the effect that the defendant would be damaged by assault by contacting the table (in the face of No. 24 of the investigation record), and on May 17, 2015, the defendant suffered the same injury as stated in the facts charged, depending on the face of the table, and was hospitalized at the hospital to the extent of one week (in the face of No. 38 of the investigation record), this court stated to the effect that the defendant would be damaged by assaulting the table (in the face of No. 24 of the investigation record).