Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.3 million won.

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

Punishment of the crime

On October 12, 2015, the Defendant: (a) requested the issuance of documents related to insurance money on the first floor of the D building located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Jung-gu, Seoul on October 21, 2015; (b) “A change in business hours has been made” from the victim E even though he/she received a request for the withdrawal from the building manager E several times; (c) “A change in business hours has not been made with the documents inside and outside of the documents; and (d) he/she sits and sits for about two hours, and thus refused the victim’s request for withdrawal without good cause.

On October 8, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 09:20 on October 8, 2015, 2015, the Defendant: “Around the opening of the subway 1 located in the Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul; (b) sound “D. Following the opening of the mobile machine stored in his/her portable phone,” on the ground that “the mobile machine does not work,” the Defendant is the victim F (51 years old) of the service cause.

In the process of hearing the defect, salute, etc., the victim publicly insultingd the victim by concluding that “the victim was salute ma, salute, salute., salute.,” the victim’s age.

Summary of Evidence

"2015 High 4450"

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Written statements (E);

1. Protocol of the police statements of E - 2015 High Court 4474 ";

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Complaint (F);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Articles 319(2) and 319(1) of the Criminal Act (in the case of refusing to withdraw), Article 311 of the Criminal Act (in the case of refusing to withdraw), and the selection of fines, respectively;

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 as to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (hereinafter “2015 High Court Decision 4450”) regarding the Defendant’s assertion of the provisional payment order (hereinafter “the Defendant”) is a justifiable act for the realization of his/her right since the completion of business hours, and there was no harm to the peace of a building by the Defendant’s act, and since the Defendant did not exercise violence or interfere with security within the building.