Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On November 9, 2013, the Defendant: (a) committed a dispute with employees at C hotel D clubs; (b) had been investigated into the crime of interference with business on the part of his employees; (c) had been frightened on the 16th day of the same month; and (d) had been unable to re-convened at the above club and C hotel tracks; and (c) had lost goods at C hotel with the unclaimed portion.

1. No person shall make a false report on any crime or disaster to a public official who is not in violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act;

Nevertheless, at around 16:00 on November 16, 2013, the Defendant made a false report on the fact that the Defendant did not “Ambrid 2 lost Ambrid 2,” but did not have any particular reaction on November 17, 2017, Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, on November 16, 201, reported to the effect that “Ambrid 2 was lost at C hotel around 04:00” was not “Ambrid 2 at C hotel around November 16, 2013.”

2. The Defendant, at around 02:10 on November 17, 2013, testified that “Ambrid2 was lost from the hotel” at the hotel set on the above hotel, and viewed “CCTV.”

I would like to find out a par value.

In order to prevent the disturbance for about 10 minutes and 10 minutes in the lost property center, it interfered with the business affairs of C hotel employees by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. A written statement;

1. Loss report; and

1. A report on investigation;

1. Application of CCTV CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 3 (3) 2 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

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. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, was in a state of mental disability due to stimulative disorder.

2. According to the written confirmation of the Defendant’s medical examination and treatment, the Defendant’s Defendant was able to diversified on December 12, 2013.