On August 9, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Seoul Southern District Court for the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, and completed the execution of the sentence at the Seoul Southern District Court on December 9, 2013, and on July 29, 2014, the Seoul Southern District Court issued a summary order of KRW 2 million as a result of the crime of obstruction of business at the Seoul Southern District Court and filed a request for formal trial and filed a request for formal trial, and the same criminal record is more than 18 times.

1. Around 13:00 on February 23, 2015, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s restaurant business by force for a period of about one hour, such as: (a) the Defendant: (b) was able to cause the receipt under the influence of alcohol from the E restaurant operated by the victim D in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government; (c) was able to take a bath to the restaurant employees including the victim; and (d) was able to do so.

2. On February 23, 2015, the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties, at the place indicated in the preceding paragraph, at around 14:40, when he obstructed a restaurant business in a drunken state, as described in the preceding paragraph, and was demanded from G (the age 52) who was dispatched after 112, to request the head of the Seoul Geumcheon Police Station F District Unit (the age 52) to leave the restaurant, the Defendant was able to set the front side of the said restaurant while taking a bath.

Accordingly, the question of whether the fire officer I(33 years of age) belonging to the H119 Safety Center, who was dispatched to the site after receiving a report on the first-aid service from the above F District, was defective, and assaulted by the above I at once, on a drinking, about whether he would go to the hospital.

The Defendant tried to keep the back of the G above G in order to stop this, and assaulted the Defendant by walking three times.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by a fire officer on emergency rescue operations, and interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by a police officer on the maintenance of order and crime control.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. Each statement of D and I;

1. Each internal investigation report and CCTV for investigation reports;