If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

around 21:10 on August 23, 2018, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s restaurant business by force by force, such as: (a) the victim was under the influence of the Defendant at the D cafeteria operated by the victim C in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, for about 50 minutes, such as: (b) the victim was under the influence of the Defendant; (c) the victim was able to take a bath because of the defect in the following; and (d) the entrance door was opened in hand on several occasions; (d) the customer was unable to enter the said cafeteria; and (e) the customer was allowed to leave the cafeteria; and (e) the victim’s restaurant business was obstructed by force.

around 23:40 on December 31, 2018, the Defendant damaged the wall of the above main point to ensure that the 400,000 won of the repair cost is broken by making the interior wall of the said main point to be fleeped, gleeped, gleeped, gleeped, gleeped, and glicked, glicked, glicked, and glicked, glicked, glicked, and glicked, within the main point owned by the victim, on the ground that drinking alcohol was taken at the G main points of the F management of the victim of the 1st underground floor in Seo-gu, Daegu-gu, Seoul, and caused the disturbance of other customers.

Summary of Evidence

"2018 Highest 2547"

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. C’s statement of the police station: “2019 high-ranking235”;

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. A H statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (as to attachment of photographs of a damaged site);

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act, the choice of fines for crimes;

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

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the Defendant had the same criminal records and has repeated crimes of this case even though he is a repeated offense period, there is a need for strict punishment of the Defendant.

However, the defendant often appeals to recognize his mistake and not repeat the offense while against himself.