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

On January 24, 2016, the Defendant 04:20 around 04:20, while calculating the drinking value at a restaurant operated by the victim C, the Defendant was drunk and was frighted to the victim, and the customer who was next to the Defendant was frighting to fright to fright and make a fright to fright to fright to fright, and fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright, and

Accordingly, the above victim reported 112 to the Nice police about the defective victim’s “Chewing”

Along to approximately 20 minutes of the disturbance, such as “nicking and bathing, interfered with the victim’s restaurant operation work by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of the police statement protocol law to C

1. Article 314 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act that the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime even though he/she had a previous conviction at several times, and that the Defendant did not agree with the victim is in need of strict punishment against the Defendant.

However, considering the fact that the defendant repents his mistake, the power of the defendant and the degree of damage suffered by the victim, it seems somewhat harsh to sentence the defendant, and considering the age, sex and environment of the defendant, the motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing conditions specified in the arguments in this case shall be determined like the order.