2. Where the defendant does not pay the above fine. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 16093, Jan. 1,

1. On November 16, 2014, the Defendant, who interfered with his/her duties, does not sell alcohol to the Defendant on the ground that C had already been under the influence of alcohol in a 'D' restaurant operated by the Victim C located in the Gu-Si of Gu-si on November 16, 2014.

The defect b. Dok b. Dok b.

dr. dyp and balk walk

The cafeteria was able to play a bath and interfere with the victim C's restaurant operation service by force, such as the table and the sprinking of a customer who is seated in the restaurant.

2. The Defendant, on the ground of the fact that the victim E expresses himself at a location such as the preceding paragraph of the assault, assaulted the victim E with three face of the victim E at the floor of the hand, and assaulted the victim E at one to two times in a dunes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Some statements made against the defendant in the protocol concerning the examination of the suspect of the police (Obstruction of duties);

1. Each police statement protocol against C and E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (a wooden statement);

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business), Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of violence) and the selection of each fine for the crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

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 concerning the order of provisional payment;