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

On August 17, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around August 17, 2014, around 8, 2014, at the victim D’s operation “Ekpet” located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul, Seoul; (b) Mara, 50 tin tin stin stin stin stin stin stin stin stin stin stin sar, and (c) around 17, 2014, the Defendant stin stin stin snif

approximately 30 minutes of disturbance have been avoided, such as "a large sound, and return to customers in the place."

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's liquor sales business.

Summary of Evidence

1. The part of the Defendant’s statement in the police interrogation protocol against the Defendant that “The Defendant has made the same remarks as those indicated in the facts charged, and all the E Kaf-in’s statements are true” (19th page, 24th page of the investigation record) of the Defendant’s statement that “The Defendant’s voice was large at the time, and the subsequent E Kab customers turned out to the E Kaf.

“The part of each statement of Defendant and D (the 21th page, 37 pages of the investigation records)

1. The written statement of D shall take place where the Defendant “Isker Scick and fluort it to business places, and customers are also customers on the side tables, and if you rent a place within a large lusium, Isperson will be a big day.

part of the statement that “I” means, “I, without delay, closed the door (15 pages of the investigation records).”

1. Parts of the statement made by the witness D in the fifth public trial records;

1. Part of the witness G in the fifth public trial record;

1. Part of each statement by the witness H and I;

1. Protocols concerning the prosecution of H and the suspect examination of each police officer;

1. The H’s statement (or, despite the Defendant’s request to refuse to provide a place on the part of the Defendant at the time of the instant case, the victim’s continuing to provide EKaf to a meeting place of the F apartment board of representatives, as stated in the facts charged of the instant case, would have been able to act directly by the Defendant himself/herself as such, it constitutes an act committed against the victim as doing any harm.