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

1. On October 6, 2017, at the main point of “E” operated by the victim D(45 tax) of the victim D(E) of Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu and the third floor on October 6, 2017, the Defendant who interfered with his/her duties gets home to the Defendant, “I Doh???”

The victim's main business affairs were obstructed by force by avoiding disturbance, such as putting a large sound, raising trial costs, etc. to customers.

2. The Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties at the same time and place as above, “The male who ever taken the alcohol would have no pressure on making the guest.”

“A police officer, who was dispatched upon receipt of the report 112, conducted a assault by G, who is a police officer belonging to the Seoul Western Police Station F patrol Station, and assaulted by G, who is a police officer of the Seoul Western Police Station, to check whether the Defendant was assaulted and to walk the face of the said G once due to a defect in carrying the patrol lane

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Each police statement made in relation to G or D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the investigation report (No. 5 once a year);

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business) and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. The sentencing guidelines shall not apply to the selection of each selective fine of punishment (the defendant shall be punished by a fine in consideration of the circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant is both aware of the facts of the crime, the first offender who has no record of criminal punishment prior to the instant case, the fact that there is a somewhat contingent crime, and the fact that the victim of the obstruction of business does not want the punishment of the defendant).

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the same Act (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes with respect to a violation of more serious punishment)

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act concerning the dismissal of public prosecution against confinement in a workhouse (a point of violence);

1. The summary of the facts charged is D on October 22, 2017, around 22:00, Seoul Seocho-gu and the third floor.