1. Around 02:10 on November 25, 2014, the Defendant interfered with the business of the Defendant: (a) stated that “E convenience stores,” in which the victim D, working as an employee of the victim D, in light of light life, came to be drunk, and without any justifiable reason, they interfered with the victim’s convenience store business by: (b) stating that “I am hacker, dead, and hacker,” and holding the victim who prevented him from doing so, that “I am hacker, dead, and hacker,” and “I am for about 20 minutes of the disturbance, I am for the Republic of Korea, and China, I am for the convenience store; and (c) the customers who had entered the said convenience store are unable to get out of the convenience store, thereby obstructing the victim’s convenience store business by force.

2. The Defendant, at the same time and place as the preceding paragraph of the assault, committed assault against the victim on the ground that the victim D (the age of 22) said the Defendant “Issn't son to son and her son and her fl's fl's fl's fl's fl's head and fl's fl's head.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. A statement prepared by the F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of victims;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act, Articles 314(1) and 313 of the Criminal Act, Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of imprisonment (in the event that the defendant recognizes the crime of this case, it is contrary to the recognition of the crime of this case, but it has not yet been recovered from damage to the victim, and circumstances, such as the defendant's previous conviction and many others, are taken into account);

1. It is so decided as per Disposition on the grounds of the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act, which increases concurrent crimes;