Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On February 2, 2016, at around 11:00, the Defendant received a demand from the victim to “Eche division” operated by the victim D in Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, for re-treatment for the victim as the victims have broken the infant who received treatment in the above dental surgery for about one year, and it was demanded from the victim that “No new one would be able to be able to be hicked due to the patient’s mistake.”

그러나 피고인은 이에 응하지 아니하고 같은 날 12:15경까지 위 병원에서 “원장선생님이 쌩까네, 못해주겠다고 튕기네”라고 말하는 등 정당한 이유 없이 피해자의 퇴거요

The Gu refused to comply with the Gu.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol against the accused (including a substitute part with D);

1. Each police statement made to D or F;

1. In the application of Acts and subordinate statutes, investigation reports, recording records, investigation reports (in the form of addition, recording files and recording notes attached), recording records and recording records, G of recording articles, and records;

1. Relevant Article 319 (2) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The crime of refusal to leave under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act refers to the crime of refusal to leave as the protected legal interest is the peace of de facto residence, and even if the place is open, the manager can restrict access as necessary. Thus, if the manager of the building fails to comply with the request to leave due to the disturbance despite the legitimate request to leave, the crime of refusal to leave constitutes the crime of refusal to leave.

According to each evidence of the judgment, the defendant, around 11:00 on February 2, 2016, stated that there was an error in the victim's dental clinic treatment that was received one year prior to the victim's dental clinic, and that there was an additional treatment, and the victim demanded an additional treatment without compensation. Even though the victim explained that there was an outbreak of malutism by the defendant's care, the victim is not acceptable and humping.