A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

At around 15:50 on October 11, 2012, the Defendant, at Samsung Fire C office located in Leecheon-si, Samsungcheon-si, Inc., Da, E, and F, took a bath to the Defendant who gets involved in the disturbance, and continued to look at the Defendant, and subsequently, the Defendant obstructed approximately six minutes of work of approximately 5 minutes of work of employees of Samsung F&M, such as the victim D, E, and F, who threatened the Defendant with drinking and drinking. The Defendant: (a) expressed that the Defendant was able to go back to thischeon-si floor; (b) he may come back from thischeon-si floor; and (c) expressed a strong voice and voice; and (d) by force, the Defendant interfered with the work of approximately 6 members of Samsung F&M, etc., who were engaged in the insurance business at the above office by avoiding the disturbance for about 5 minutes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of each police statement of D and E;

1. Application of CCTV Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

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

1. The dismissal part of the prosecution under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Around October 15:50 on October 11, 2012, the summary of the facts charged: (a) the Defendant, at the Samsung Fire C office where the victim D (the age of 40) works in Ischeon-si, and, on the grounds that the said insurance company arbitrarily moved to another repair industry company, the vehicle that was towed by the Defendant to the industrial company engaged in his trade, was found at the end of the foregoing insurance company’s call to the above insurance company’s office and used the Defendant’s phone to “I must write off, I must write, I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am.”

2. The conclusion of the judgment is that a crime falling under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act.

However, according to the statement in the letter of withdrawal of complaint, the victim wishes to punish the defendant on November 21, 2012, which was after the prosecution of this case was instituted.