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

1. On March 20, 2014, around 15:50, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s restaurant business by force for about one hour, following the Defendant’s 15:50 marcing the victim’s “E” restaurant operated by Sungnam-si Da 1118, and, under the influence of alcohol, obstructed the victim’s restaurant business by drinking at “E” restaurant, i.e., “to singing singing singke wres. sing singke sing singkes.”

2. The Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties, upon receiving a report at the date and time, at the place specified in the foregoing 1. Paragraph 1., and with the intent of “I am sark sark to sar the sark to sar the sark to sar.” The Defendant interfered with the police officer G’s legitimate performance of duties when I am sar the face and head of G with the hand floor.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to written statements of victims of D;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstruction of performance of official duties and the choice of fines) concerning criminal facts;

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

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order include: (a) the defendant was committed by committing a crime; (b) the victim D does not want the criminal punishment against the defendant; and (c) the defendant has no criminal record of having been punished for obstruction of business or obstruction of performance of official duties; and (d) the punishment is