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

The defendant is a person who received medical treatment at a hospital located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, operated by the victim C.

A. On March 17, 2015, from around 09:40 to around 10:00 on the same day, the Defendant interfered with the operation of the hospital by force, such as: (a) the Defendant: (b) the victim’s wrong diagnosis before the hospital’s clinic; (c) the Defendant saw the victim to have the hospital closed the hospital’s door; (d) the Defendant’s sound “accompicing the hospital’s door”; or (e) the Defendant flading the disturbance by “acing the hospital’s door and demonstration in the

B. On March 18, 2015, from around 10:40 to around 11:10 on the same day, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s medical treatment and the operation of the hospital by force by force, such as: (a) having provided treatment to the patients at the same place; (b) having taken care of the patients; (c) having taken a bath to restrain the hospital employees; and (d) having interfered with the victim’s medical treatment and operation of the hospital.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of the witness C and E in the fourth public trial protocol;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of the USB Acts and subordinate statutes (netly 15, dynamics);

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts, the choice of fines for each crime (the victim C does not have any punishment against the defendant, and the defendant does not have any past record of any other crime, in addition to the previous conviction of a fine in violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act);

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. Determination on the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Each act of the defendant in this case is not with intent to obstruct hospital business, but with intent to resisting that the defendant experienced from the hospital business, and constitutes a justifiable act stipulated in Article 20 of the Criminal Act, which does not violate social norms.

2. The judgment does not contravene the social rules stipulated in Article 20 of the Criminal Code.