Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

1. On September 4, 2013, at around 08:30, the injured Defendant discovered that the victim F (54 years of age) who is a member of the E Party affiliated with the E Party was distributing the former part of the NIS reform together with G (H: the former part of the name: H) who is a member of the E Party affiliated with the same Party, to many and unspecified citizens, and took a bath to the victim while carrying the victim’s breath and sway, the injured Defendant, in hand, caused the victim’s damage to the right hand hand hand hand of the victim about the defect in which the victim attempted to breath of the Defendant’s hand, and caused the victim’s injury at approximately three weeks of treatment.

2. The Defendant interfered with business by force interfered with the distribution and public relations of leaflets against the victims who are members of the National Assembly while bringing an injury to the victims who have distributed leaflets relating to the reform of the NIS at the time and place described in paragraph (1) as prescribed in paragraph (1).

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement made by witnesses G in the third protocol of trial;

1. A protocol of examination of part of the defendant by prosecution;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the results of viewing video recordings CDs;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of injury), Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business), and the selection of fines for the crime;

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. Judgment on the defense counsel’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the defense counsel’s assertion is that the Defendant reported that the Defendant divided the victim’s former part of the NIS reform by dividing it into the former part of the NIS reform, and the Defendant took away the former part of the NIS’s dissolution, thereby making the guest of the former part of the NIS. However, the Defendant prevented the Defendant from driving away the Defendant, while driving away the Defendant, and the Defendant was the victim and the victim.