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 February 15, 2014, at around 15:45, the Defendant interfered with the business, the Defendant: (a) obstructed the business of selling the victim D’s fruits by means of the victim D and Si expenses, such as making the victim D, who spits the floor into “E” in front of the victim D’s operation in Gyeyang-gu Incheon Gyeyang-gu, Incheon; (b) making the victim D and Si expenses, such as making the victim D and Si expenses, “I am fribly,” spiting the floor, following the reasons therefor; and (c) making the victim D, who spit into the floor, and spited the victim D with a large interest.

2. The Defendant damaged the property by throwing the plastic sludge owned by the victim on the floor for the foregoing reasons at the time and place specified in the foregoing paragraph (1).

3. In the date, time, place, as described in the above paragraph 1 above, the injured Defendant inflicted injury on the victim F (the 31 year old age), such as the victim F (the victim F)’s face and body part to the victim F (the victim F) who was unable to act as above, and the victim F (the victim F)’s face and body part to the victim F (the victim F) was able to receive approximately two weeks of medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant (as of the second trial date);

1. Each legal statement of witness F, G, and D, and part of witness H’s legal statement;

1. Damage photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the medical certificate (F);

1. As to interference with the business of the Defendant’s act of interference with each of the above acts in the process of causing interference with the business of interfering with the operation of the Defendant, as to the pertinent legal provisions on criminal facts, Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business), and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with property damage), and each of the selective Defendant and the defense counsel, when the Defendant was bound by F, etc. from the above temporary border, etc. to find out the children for a period of 24 months. However, it is argued to the effect that this constitutes a justifiable act that does not go against social norms, but if comprehensive consideration is given of the background, means, methods, and degree of damage