If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

[2014 high-level 158] From February 24, 2013 to 13:45, the Defendant d'D' restaurant operated by the victim C located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and obstructed the victim's restaurant business by force by following the following: (a) the Defendant d'D' restaurant operated by the victim C; (b) the Defendant d' D' restaurant without the influence of alcohol, and d'eing employees who funcing, “I am fright, my inside, you am fright, and d'I am?’; and (c) the Defendant d't talked with the victim's restaurant business by force.

[2] From around 19:00 on May 29, 2013 to 20:40 on the same day, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s restaurant business by force by having the victim F, who was in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, left the restaurant with his mother, such as her mother’s “G” restaurant, which is operated by the victim F, her mother, and her mother, enjoying a large amount of urine and the floor of the floor, and raising a trial fee, and preventing the entering customers from entering the restaurant, thereby obstructing the victim’s restaurant business.

Summary of Evidence

[2014 High Court Decision 158]

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Statement of the police concerning C [2014 High Court Decision 162]

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Application of the police statement-related Acts and subordinate statutes to F;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

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

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;