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

1. 업무방해 피고인은 2014. 6. 15. 15:45경부터 같은 날 15:52경까지 전북 완주군 C에 있는 피해자 D이 운영하는 ‘E식당’에서, 술에 취한 상태로 피해자에게 “시발, 밥 줘!”라고 말을 했음에도 피해자가 ‘밥이 떨어져 없다’고 얘기를 하자 이에 화가 나, 위 식당에 있는 손님 2명에게 다가가 “니가 밥을 못주게 했냐 죽여버린다!”라고 말하는 등 소란을 피워 위 식당의 손님을 밖으로 나가게 함으로써 위력으로 피해자의 식당운영 업무를 방해하였다.

2. At around 16:05 on June 15, 2014, the Defendant was informed of the facts constituting the crime set forth in paragraph (1) while riding a bicycle, and was dispatched from G to the police box of the relevant police box of the Republic of Korea, which was called out, around 16:05.

The Defendant: (a) expressed his desire to “Ye, chrop?” and expressed his desire to “Ye far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers on the investigation of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police officer's statement about D and G;

1. A H statement;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on photographs damaged by damaged police officers;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (a point of obstructing performance of official duties) of the Criminal Act;

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 include not only the same criminal records of several times, but also the defendant also committed the instant crime even during the repeated crime period.