Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. Around 13:00 on January 16, 2014, the Defendant obstructed the operation of the victim’s private teaching institute by force, such as: (a) in the English language research institute for the victim’s operation, the Defendant 13:00, Goyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, C 402, for the victim, “I am pregnant with D; (b) have a male house; (c) have a male house; and (d) have a nick with the male house; and (d) has no nick place; (c) have a nick in which I am, and (d) has no nick place; and (e) have a nick in which I am talk with another son; and (e) has a nick in which I am with another son’s money for about 15 minutes, such as getting the victim’s class at which the victim is in charge, and making it impossible for the victim to normally engage in the class and other classes.

2. The Defendant, at the time and place of paragraph 1, experienced money from the private teaching institute instructors and students at the private teaching institute, and publicly insulting the victim by openly insulting the victim by “Isn women. Isn't have to contact, but Isn't have to communicate. Isn't have to do so for 20 years. Isn't son for 20 years, who was bl's children and were bl'd, grow up to the end of the judgment, d' who was grow up to the end of the judgment, d' who was the result of the judgment.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D and F;

1. Recording records;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on photographs inside a private teaching institute;

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 defendant and his defense counsel's assertion of the provisional payment order against the defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act are based on the fact that there is no way to communicate with the victim, and thus a dialogue was divided by finding the private teaching institute operated by the victim. Thus, the obstruction of business of this case is a legitimate act. Thus, this court is legitimate.