Defendant shall be punished by a fine not exceeding 1.5 million won.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one million won shall be the one day.

Punishment of the crime

1. On May 16, 2018, the Defendant obstructed the Defendant’s business by force for about 15 minutes, such as: (a) he collected work from the Defendant’s shop in front of the Victim D, which was displayed at the Defendant’s shop, and making it fit for the customers and fall off on the collection book, on the ground that the instant work is not well-beingd due to the excessive work operated by the Victim D, in front of the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Sungnam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Defendant interfered with the Defendant’s business.

2. The injured Defendant suffered from the victim D at the time and place described in paragraph 1, and was spawned by spawning the victim’s spath, and spawned the victim’s face, thereby causing injury to the victim for about 14 days, such as dump, tension, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D and B;

1. Examination protocol of police suspect regarding D;

1. Investigation report (Interference with business, etc.);

1. Application of the video CD-related statutes;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of a fine for the crime, the choice of a penalty, and the choice of a fine 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 portion not guilty under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order

1. On May 16, 2018, the Defendant: (a) around 13:45 on May 16, 2018, the Defendant injured the victim B, at the front of Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, Seoul, where the victim B took the face of the horse victim at his/her hand, and took the victim’s face one time at around two weeks of treatment.

2. In this Court, the witness B thought that the Defendant had his face in his hand while he was faced with the stormtoma area, and now, he thought that the Defendant was not a certain price. However, at the time, he thought that the Defendant was intentional when he was ‘the Defendant was satisfying to satisfy,’ whether he was satisfying to 'the Defendant’.

At the time, the timber was satched, and the hospital was visited.