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

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On August 8, 2015, the Defendant, at around 20:0, obstructed the victim’s multiple-duty by force, such as booming off the table table, which was under the influence of alcohol, and sitting over the table table, where another customer is seated.

2. At around 08:00 on August 9, 2015, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s marina business by force by avoiding disturbance, such as breathing the breath’s disease on the floor while drinking at Hart managed by the victim G in the F of the Jeonnam-gun G.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to G, D, and I;

1. Application of statutes, such as on-site photographs;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the same Act concerning the applicable criminal facts, the selection of fines;

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 requires a corresponding punishment in light of the fact that the defendant committed each of the instant crimes even though he/she had been subject to punishment for the same kind of crime several times. However, it is necessary to sentence the same sentence as the order, considering the circumstances favorable to the defendant, including the defendant's age, character and conduct, family relationship, family relationship, home environment, motive and means of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., including the defendant's age, character and behavior, family relation, family environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.

Public Prosecution Rejection Parts

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. On August 8, 2015, around 19:35, the Defendant demanded the victimJ, who works at Hart located in the Haak-gun F of the Jeonnam-gun, to request water from the victimJ, which was rejected. However, the Defendant’s refusal to request water from the victimJ, and the victim’s “ ” is treated as good, while I, who is an employee of the said Hart, is heard by the said Hart, and the victim’s hart’s hart’s hart is treated as good.