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

1. On June 24, 2015, at around 17:45, the Defendant: (a) resisted to the Non-friendly response of the staff who consulted the Defendant at the “Support Center for the Integration of Addiction Management in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si; and (b) did not seem to be why the victim C and D working at that place would only be “ception, internal address,” and that the Defendant would only go against the Defendant. C. C. C., I will do so.

1.bet, swelves, swelves;

The Defendant, by force, obstructed the victim’s work at the Integrated Support Center for Addiction Management in Seongbuk-si. From June 24, 2015 to June 18:06, 2015, the insulting Defendant, who received 112 reports and received a petition from the victim E and F, the police officer called “finite, finite, finite, finite, finite, finite, finite, finite, finite, finite, finite, finite, finite, and finite, finite, finite, finite, finite, etc., to publicly insult the victims.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of C and E;

1. Each statement of D and F;

1. Application of each statute on filing of a complaint;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (a point of interference with business) and Article 311 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of each alternative fine for punishment;

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

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order is that the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case during the period of repeated crime. However, an agreement was submitted under the name of the head of the Integrated Support Center for Addiction Management in Sungnam-si, wherein the defendant suffered interference with business, and C and D expressed their intent to disrupt the victim's wife only once. The defendant led to the confession of the crime of this case.