A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On October 4, 2012, at around 00:40 on October 4, 2012, the Defendant: (a) continuously collected glass cups from the D main points operated by the victim C of the second floor B B of the Siljin-si; and (b) destroyed by breaking up four of the market value equivalent to KRW 20,000,00,000,000,000,000,000 won.

2. The Defendant interfered with the business by spreading the above victim’s bath and gathering the glass cup at the time and place indicated in the preceding paragraph, and by making the customer go back to the unspecified customers, who had entered the said place, such as her satisfum, and satisf, the Defendant interfered with the D business by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement regarding C;

1. E statements;

1. Investigation report (in the case of the on-site situation), investigation report (in the case of the damage)

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each site photograph;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 314 (1) 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 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The sentencing reasons under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order include: (a) the Defendant reflects the instant crime; (b) the victim does not want the punishment by mutual consent; (c) the degree of damage is not large; and (d) the Defendant has no criminal power other than the one subjected to a disposition of suspending indictment once; and (b) the sentence is to be

Of the facts charged in this case, the summary of the Defendant’s dismissal of prosecution as to the insult of the insult of the Defendant’s indictment is the Defendant’s patently a woman of this case, i.e., on October 4, 2012, on the ground that at around 00:40, the victim C, a business owner of the Defendant’s wife, made a good speech that the Defendant’s wife would not work from the Fju to the employee from the Fju’s point of view.