Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On July 9, 2014, from around 01:00 to around 01:30 of the same day, the Defendant re-enters into the “DB club” as a “DB club” located in the wife population C from the day of the same day, and is subject to the control by E, etc., who is an employee of the said age club, and was subject to the control by the said age club, E, etc., prior to the entrance, and obstructed the entry of customers, and thereby, the Defendant’s bill of indictment was “J” in the indictment by force for about 30 minutes, but it is obvious that it is

(hereinafter the same shall apply)

He interfered with his age club business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of G, F, E, and H;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol of H and E;

1. The police statement of F (including the part of each statement of H and E);

1. Part of the statement made by the police officer concerning I;

1. Application of the F and G respective Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

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

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the argument is that the Defendant unilaterally committed an assault from F and E, who are the manager of the age club, and H and E, who are employees, and that thereby, the Defendant denied the facts charged by asserting that he was only a person who has continued to enjoy it in front of the AP club.

2. The credibility of each statement is recognized on the grounds that the contents of the statements made by the victim and witness are consistent and specific, as well as consistent and detailed, there is no inconsistency among the statements, and there is no circumstance that the statements might otherwise be false.

In addition, the defendant's K made a statement to the effect that there was an enemy against the defendant in the police investigation that the defendant's "attention" and "at the time, the defendant had been seriously deteriorated due to the trial cost with the victim and other related persons."