1. Around 22:00 on February 18, 2014, the Defendant interfered with the business of the victim, who entered Enoba, operated by the victim D (the 44 years of age) with drinking alcohol in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seoul, and received the victim’s demand for delivery on the ground that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol from the victim, thereby interfering with the victim’s singing-out business by force, such as: (a) spiting a photograph into a mobile phone with a cell phone; (b) spiting it on the floor of the carter; (c) spiting it on the phone floor; (d) spiting it into a singing room; and (e) spiting it into the singing room; and (e) making the customer who entered the singing room return to his/her home, thereby obstructing the victim’s singing-out business by force.

2. The Defendant received a report on the occurrence of disturbance at the place stipulated in Paragraph 1, and 112 of this Article, and was called out by the Defendant, the Defendant was forced to receive removal and release from the F District G of the Seoul Southern Police Station G, the slope H, and a slope H.

In doing so, the Defendant committed assault, such as spiting, spiting, spiting, spiting, drinking, etc. on the face of slope H with the view of “police death, she is a police officer,” and committing assaulting the Defendant on the floor by spiting the left head of H on the ground that H was placed on the floor.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate performance of duties on the investigation by police officers and crime prevention.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of each police protocol of statement to D and H

1. Articles 136 (1) and 314 (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. Article 57 of the Criminal Act regarding the inclusion of days of pre-trial detention in the defendant's defense counsel and grounds for sentencing

1. The defendant's defense counsel asserts that he was in a state of mental disability by being drunk at the time of the crime of this case.