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

1. 업무 방해 피고인은 2016. 1. 18. 01:05 경 서울 용산구 F에 있는 피해자 G이 운영하는 H 호텔 지하 ‘I’ 칵테일 바 (bar )에서 술에 취하여 다른 여성 손님들에게 추근거리다가 위 손님들의 요청으로 그 곳 보안요원에게 제지를 당하자 “ 신고한 여자들 다 데리고 오라 ”며 큰 소리를 지르고 욕설을 하는 등으로 소란을 피워 손님들이 밖으로 나가게 함으로써 위력으로 피해자의 칵테일 바 운영 업무를 방해하였다.

2. The Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties, upon receiving a report from 112 stating that the Defendant committed an indecent act against female customers at the same time and place as indicated in the above Paragraph 1, and that he was called out by the police box of the Seoul Yongsan Police Station in order to listen to the statements of the case from female customers, and the Defendant was able to take the action as described in the above Paragraph 1 with the victim’s husband’s name among female customers and the victim’s husband’s name cannot be identified.

Defendant 1 expressed his desire to the above male as the “son’s Dominch” and took the place once as he was removed from the above K, thereby making K’s right bucks at the right end.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning the handling of reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made to K in the police statement;

1. Lritten statements;

1. Ctv video output;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (Submission of an agreement, etc.);

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties), Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties) and the selection of fines for the crime;

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. Although the nature of the crime is not exceptionally considered as the form of the reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the victims do not want punishment in depth, and the same kind of punishment.