Defendant shall be punished by a fine of seven million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

around 08:00 on January 14, 2017, the Defendant purchased beer at the “C convenience store” located in Yansan-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and obstructed the convenience store business of the victim by force by purchasing a beer at around 15 minutes, i.e., the victim D would not be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to die, beer, beer, and beer, beer, beer, bed, bed, bed in the beer, bed in the beer, bed, bed in the beer, bed in the beer, and bed in the beer.

On April 19, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 18:20 on April 19, 2017, the Defendant: (b) on the G route operated by the victim F, the victim F, who was in the Yansan-gu E, Seoul Special Self-Governing Province; (c) on the issue that the victim’s wife expressed his or her desire to do so, the victim’s “the victim’s speech that he or she would not take the victim’s wife,” “the victim’s wife,” was able to hear the horses and humiliations; and (d) the victim suffered an injury to the victim for treatment for the number of days.

Summary of Evidence

[2017 Highest 200]

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. A report on internal investigation:

1. Photographs (2017 Height 1162);

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Articles 314(1) and 257(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business), and the selection of fines for criminal facts;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act was 29 times the criminal defendant, who was punished for identical violent crimes, etc. (6 times the actual punishment, 1.0 times the suspended execution). Although there were several occasions of punishment due to the crime of larceny, it was impossible to complete the sentence due to the same violent crimes and committed each of the crimes of this case from the 8th day after the completion of sentence due to the same violent crimes. In light of the form of each of the crimes of this case and the method of each of the crimes of this case, the crime is bad.