Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On May 27, 2017, the Defendant interfered with his/her duties: (a) at a “E restaurant” restaurant operated by the Victim D (Inn, 49 years of age) located in Seoul Central-gu Seoul Central Government on May 27, 2017; and (b) at the same time, the Victim D (Inn, 8 years of age) placed in the Dong and Seo-gu 2 C, with the order of the Dong and Seo-ju 2 C, without any justifiable reason,

Is it in China;

Does it be illegal aliens;

Doese food;

Earsen

Is Madozin

Along with the fact that “The Victim Doctrine,” Doctrine, “The Victim Doctrine,” “The Victim Doctrine,” “The Victim Doctrine, Doctrine,” and Doctrine to the Victim and the Customer, Doctrine the Victim Doctrine, and Doctrine the Victim Doctrine, and obstructed the Victim’s restaurant business by force for about two hours.

2. Although a person violating the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act does not throw away cigarette but without permission at any place, Defendant 1 has been working for the police officers in the presence of tobacco in front of the police officers called upon receiving 112 reports on the same date and time as in paragraph 1 above, and at the same place as in paragraph 1 above.

A complaint shall be filed for an offense of false accusation.

n Does have received a bribe

“Pather cigarette butts that were batd while intending to do so, they thrown away to India.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. Application of statutes governing the business report photographs of “E cafeteria”

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business), Article 3 (1) 11 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act (the point of dumping wastes, etc.), and Article 3 (1) 11 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, and the choice of fines, respectively;

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 provides that the defendant's act of interfering with the defendant's business is acknowledged according to the evidence above.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be determined in consideration of the degree of interference with business.