1. On December 4, 2016, the Defendant: (a) expressed a disturbance to the “F” restaurant operated by the victim E in Chungcheongnam-gun Hong-gun, Hongsung-gun on December 4, 2016; (b) expressed, under the influence of alcohol, that “I see why I h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the victim's restaurant business by force.

2. On December 4, 2016, at the place of the foregoing No. 22:40 on December 4, 2016, the Defendant: (a) received a report of the above E’s 112 that the Defendant avoided disturbance; (b) recommended the Defendant to return home to the Defendant; (c) the Defendant Ha and Hasman belonging to the Hongsung Police Station G District of the Hongsung Police Station, who visited the Defendant, attempted to take the Defendant from drinking, and attempted to take the Defendant back to drinking, and (d) assault I’s back to knekne with knee, upon the Defendant’s restraint.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning 112 reporting processing and investigation affairs.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made with respect to I, E, and H;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business), Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with the performance of public duties) and the choice of imprisonment for each crime;

1. The grounds for sentencing under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38(1)2 and Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes, and other conditions of all the sentencing recorded in the records, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, and circumstances before and after the instant crime, shall be determined as ordered by taking into account the following circumstances.

The fact that the crime of this case is committed, the victim E is agreed with, the fact that the police officer deposited KRW 1 million for the purpose of H and I, and that the crime of this case was committed during the suspension period of execution due to the same crime, and that the crime of this case was not committed due to the failure to interfere with the legitimate execution of duties by the police officer.