Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

Punishment of the crime

1. From around 23:00 on July 2, 2017 to around 23:45 on the same day, the Defendant who interfered with the business became a man who works with her husband and a man who works with her husband during the period of drinking with her husband during the period of drinking with her husband and a man who works with her husband, and a man who works with her husband during drinking with her husband, on the ground that she paid a large amount of F, the main week of the her husband’s fighting.

"I will be prohibited from funeral services here."

Along to about 25 minutes of the above victim F's main duties, such as taking a large amount of desire, such as "I ambling" and taking other customers in a disturbance, it interfered with the said victim F's main duties.

2. The Defendant, for the foregoing reasons, committed assault to the victim F, who was at the time of fighting with a view to fighting, and assaulted the right-hand buck once.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspect with respect to F;

1. G statements;

1. Application of a report on dispatch to the scene of a violent incident, on-site, and photographs of damage;

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business and the selection of fines) concerning the facts constituting an offense, and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of violence and the selection of fines);

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. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The defendant alleged that ① in relation to the point of interference with business, the fact that he caused some disturbance at the main point is recognized by the dispute with F, but in fact, the cause of disturbance was first expressed by F to the daily behaviors of the defendant, and the behavior obstructing the business of the defendant on the day of the instant case, including the dispute between the defendant and the daily activities, cannot be viewed as the responsibility of the defendant, and ② in relation to the point of violence, the fact that the course of the defendant, a female, was created to F, cannot be a threat to the male F, who is a woman, rather than the defendant, and that F does not have any fact.

2. Determination

A. Each judgment on the first argument is rendered.