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

On May 21, 2017, the Defendant, “2017 Highest 3997,” was under the influence of liquor from around 20:15 to around 20:50 on May 21, 2017, the Defendant prevented other customers from pointing out the disturbance due to breathing a large speech around the street store operated by the victim D, etc.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the victim's street store operation by force.

The Defendant, “2017 Highest 5058,” without a driver’s license, driven on May 25, 2017, approximately 10 meters of the H L LL car from the frontway of the F store in the Gyeonggi E market to the frontway of G store while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.188% from May 25, 2017.

Summary of Evidence

"2017 Highest 3997"

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Recording of each of the statements made by witnesses D and B in the sixth public trial records;

1. The protocol of interrogation of the suspect against the defendant (According to each evidence in the judgment, the defendant may sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant himself/herself takes the victim's bath while taking the victim's care of him/her, and in light of the circumstances, place, object, duration of the act, etc., it constitutes force that is likely to interfere with the duties of the victim).

"2017 Highest 5058"

1. Recording of witness D's statements in the sixth public trial records;

1. Report on the situation of driving at home and report on the situation of driving without a license;

1. Notification of the results of crackdown on drinking driving and inquiry of the results of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Ctv-Cd (the Defendant and the defense counsel claimed that the F store store I, which has a usual friendly relationship, was parked while driving a H R R Rrara truck, and that the Defendant did not drive the above cargo vehicle.

However, in light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by this court, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant was parked in the above cargo vehicle while driving it. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel cannot be accepted.

(1)