1. On June 8, 2016, the Defendant interfered with business: (a) around 15:23, 2016, the Defendant went alone from around 17:00 to around 19:20 of the meals he was taking on a “Ecafeteria” operated by the Victim D in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City; (b) went alone without any justifiable reason; and (c) talked with the victim and his employees, and expressed an article to the victim and his employees, and (d) talked with the victim’s restaurant business by taking advantage of the large amount of 2 hours and 20 minutes from that time to around 19:20 minutes from that date, and interfered with the victim’s restaurant business by force by avoiding the disturbance as above.

The written indictment states that the defendant interfered with the restaurant business for about 3 hours and 45 minutes from 15:23 to 19:20. However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant is deemed to have commenced an act interfering with the restaurant business from 17:00 to 19:00, and even if it is corrected, it is not likely that the defendant's exercise of his/her right to defense may be put

2. On June 8, 2016, at the above restaurant around 19:20, the Defendant: (a) took a bath to the employees from the superintendent of the police box of the Magjin Police Station that received a report; (b) obstructed the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties concerning the prevention of and investigation into the police officer’s crime, by putting him/her out, and her away from, the police arms of H by her hand; and (c) her hand was arrested as an flagrant offender in the act of obstruction of performance of duties from H by taking his/her flag, leading him/her to the flag, thereby going beyond the floor in the course of arresting him/her as an flagrant offender in the act of obstruction of performance of duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each police statement made to D and H;

1. Each statement of D and F;

1. An investigation report (a statement of I who is a restaurant customer);

1. The investigation report (CCTV image reading results) and the screen pictures of the suspension screen (the defendant does not recognize the facts of the crime as indicated in the judgment, but according to each of the above evidence, the facts of the crime in the judgment are sufficiently recognized (D.).