If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

A. On January 20, 2013, around 00:05, the Defendant obstructed the business of the instant singing practice room for about 40 minutes by force, such as: (a) the Defendant, within the “Dwork practice room” located in the “Dwork room in Sungsung City Co., Ltd.; (b) the Defendant would bring about on the walling of the Cwork room; and (c) the Defendant would make the victim E (the 40 years of age, women) who is the owner of the instant work, take a bath; and (d) the Defendant would prevent the customers from entering the bar due to the c

B. Around 02:10 on January 20, 2013, the Defendant insultd the victim publicly, such as “F and G police officers in charge of visiting the scene, who demanded the disturbance, such as “A” to leave the venue in a singing singing room,” and “F and G, who are publicly insulting the victim, such as: (a) the police officer in charge of leaving the place of the scene, who is a police officer, would die if he or she is a police officer; (b) he or she would die in a governance organ; and (c) if he or she was not interfere with his or her duties, he or she would

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness F and E;

1. Each police statement to F and E;

1. A E-document;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 311 of the Criminal Act, Article 311 of the Criminal Act, and the selection of fines for the crime;

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

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

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the assertion does not interfere with the duty of the Defendant, and it was true that the Defendant took a bath, but the Defendant’s act was committed during the process of resistance against the illegal arrest by the police officer, and thus, the Defendant’s act constitutes self-defense or legitimate act.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the fact that the defendant obstructed E’s singing business as indicated in the judgment, and the police officers dispatched to the above singing room lawfully performed their duties, but the defendant took a bath as stated in the judgment.