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

1. Around 16:00 on November 9, 2014, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s restaurant business by force over approximately two hours, including: (a) the victim’s “D” restaurant in the operation of the victim C in Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu; and (b) the Defendant was a customer with the meal and meal as a customer; (c) the Defendant was making the lid lid from drinking sofacing, leaving the lid on the table, and leaving the other customers by advertising the chair; and (d) the victim avoiding the disturbance; and (e) threatening the victim’s victim’s restaurant business by force.

2. At around 17:55 on the same day as indicated in the preceding paragraph, the Defendant: (a) committed assault, such as: (b) the defect that the relevant slope F of the Yananannam Police Station Escopa, sent out after receiving a report of 112 regarding the act of interference with the performance of official duties; and (c) the hump F of the Yanannam Police Station Escopa, called “this spak flab flab flab flab, rings, and glaf,” b

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of each police statement statute to C and F;

1. Article 314 (1) and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) and Article 136 (1) of the same Act concerning the relevant criminal facts and the choice of punishment;

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. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the degree of damage on the grounds of sentencing under Article 334(1) is not relatively much severe, the victim C does not want to be punished against the defendant, and on November 18, 2003, a fine of KRW 300,000 is imposed due to the violation of the Establishment of Homeland Reserve Forces Act. The defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, etc. are integrated.