1. On March 7, 2014, from around 00:10 to around 00:30 of the same day, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s restaurant business by: (a) on the ground that the victim D operated in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government from around 00:10 to around 00:30 of the same day, the Defendant, on the ground that, while making the victim’s remarks in the restaurant operated by the victim D, the customers in the name-free will not speak against the Defendant; and (b) on the ground that the customers in the name-free will not speak against the Defendant, the Defendant was able to avoid the disturbance, such as: (c) thrown the empty fluen in the entrance,

2. Around 00:40 on March 7, 2014, the Defendant was arrested as an offender in the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties to a slope F belonging to the Dongjak Police Station E-district, who was called out after receiving a report that the principal offender was obstructing his/her business by breaking his/her happiness and obstructing his/her business at the above place.

The defendant, who was about to be aboard the patrol vehicle, was able to walk the back door of the patrol vehicle in several times, take a bath to the above F, and assaulting the head on one occasion by drinking.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the arrest of police officers in the act of committing a crime.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D and F;

1. Field photographs, etc.;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the statement of F and D;

1. Article 314 (1), Articles 313 and 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Considering the favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the degree of damage caused by the obstruction of reasons in sentencing, Article 57 of the Criminal Act, including the number of days of pre-trial detention, is not so large that the victim D does not want the punishment of the defendant, and that the degree of assault cannot be considered to be serious

However, even though the defendant was under the suspension of execution due to the same crime, the defendant is a person who is very aware of the crime in the state that the defendant did not drink.