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

1. The Defendant interfered with business is a person who was hospitalized in 303 “C prison affairs”.

On March 15, 2016, from around 21:50 to 23:05, the Defendant: (a) 10 patients in the fourth-class nurse room in the instant hospital: (b) 10 patients in the instant hospital; (c) 10 patients in the instant hospital; (d) on the ground that he/she did not notify her in advance; and (d) she did so; and (e) she did so at the sick room, and (e) she did so; (d) her own her own her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her.

2. Around March 15, 2016, the Defendant, upon receiving a report from the hospitalization room of 303, the Defendant insultingd the victim by publicly citing that “I, the chief of the prime affairs division, B, and two children of B shall return home to the police officer E in the situation where there are 303 patients I, the chief of the prime affairs division, and two children of B,” who were sent to the police station, and subsequently, expressed that “I, the frith, the frith frith frith frith frith frith frith frith, and the frith frith frith frith frith frith frith frith frith frith

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each written statement G, E, and B;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes concerning outdoor images and video images;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 311 of the Criminal Act, Article 311 of the Criminal Act, and the selection of fines for the crime;

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 dismissal part of the prosecution under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. This part of the facts charged is identical to paragraph (2) of the facts constituting a crime indicated in the judgment around March 15, 2016.