If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

1. On November 4, 2017, the Defendant: (a) 19:00 on November 4, 2017, 19: (b) 1003 at the hospitalization room of the D Hospital located in Busan-gu, Busan-do, and (c) 20 minutes of his husband’s bridge, i.e., “the guardian of the patient at B”, who is a security staff member called “the guardian of the patient at B,” and i.e., the husband’s bridge, who is being accumulated in the beds due to the Audination, i.e., the victim from the damage, could not enter the ward at his/her own seat; and (d) 20 minutes of his/her portable phone, such as taking a detailed attitude as he/she seems to have taken the phone from the victim to the ward.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the safety management in the hospital by force of the victim.

2. On November 4, 2017, the Defendant obstructed the performance of official duties at around 20:00, at the same place as above, where there was a guard G (57 years old) who is the police officer belonging to the F District of the Busan Police Station, which called the F District of the Busan Police Station, called out after receiving a report on the frighting day, left the frights of the above police officer as soon as possible.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties such as the protection of police officers' lives, body, prevention and suppression of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. Application of statutes on police statements made to E, G, and H;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime;

1. Selection of each alternative fine for punishment;

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. The crime of this case for the reason of sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act attracting a workhouse appears to have been caused by the symptoms of dementia, etc. In addition, the Defendant appears to have no risk of re-offending because the Defendant was treated for the symptoms of this case, and the victim of the crime of interference with business did not want the punishment of the Defendant by agreement with the Defendant, and the Defendant does not want to be punished.