The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Of the facts charged of this case, the prosecution against each of the assaults is dismissed.

A crime history room (Interference with business) was committed by the Defendant at around 13:40 on September 12, 2020, under D'D operated by the victim C at Paju on September 13:40, 202, the Defendant was unable to avoid disturbance for about 12 minutes for the following reasons: (a) the victim C, who knew of such fact, expressed that the Defendant would be “Nebbbine, fabine, fabs, and fabs,” and fabsing the Defendant’s fabbage, which is the cause of the above store where the Defendant was fably, and was fabd with the Defendant’s fabage.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the cell phone sales service of the above victims by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Application of statutes on on-site CCTV reporting;

1. Punishment of a fine of 200,000 won for which the sentence of a fine is postponed, in consideration of the following facts: (a) the defendant under Article 314(1) of the relevant Act and Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts and the selection of punishment has no criminal history; (b) his mistake is recognized and pened; and (c) the victims do not want punishment;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Dismissal of a public prosecution under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do1116, Jan

1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: at the time stated in the facts charged in the judgment, the defendant committed assault against the victim C, who knew of such facts, such as "No. 4, f. f. f. f. f. f. f. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. k

2. The judgment is a crime falling under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent pursuant to Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act. According to each of the written agreements, the victims after the prosecution of this case was instituted against the defendant.