업무방해등
A defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.
When the defendant does not pay a fine, 100,000 won shall be converted into one day.
Punishment of the crime
1. On June 10, 2017, from around 18:10 to 18:30 of the same day, the Defendant: (a) the victim C, in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, was under the influence of alcohol in the restaurant “D” operated by the victim C; (b) the music was made with a mobile phone; and (c) the telephone conversations was made by the telephone; (d) the customer of the next table B, who was requested by the customer to move out from the damaged by avoiding disturbance, such as having the customer in his/her hand, by making him/her pay for the food, and (e) the Defendant refused to do so; and (e) the president of the A
In this way, it interfered with the victim's restaurant business by force by avoiding disturbances, such as " how often they are inside and outside," and by allowing them to move away from a pipe, and by obstructing the victim's restaurant business by force.
2. On June 10, 2017, at around 18:30, the Defendant: (a) committed assault, such as: (b) the Defendant: (c) the Defendant, while preparing a written statement on the suspicion of interference with the Defendant’s business from the victim as set out in paragraph (1) of the Song-gu Police Station E District, sent out after receiving a report of 112 from the place as set out in paragraph (1); and (d) the Defendant, “I would like to “I am out the city’s dog,” and “I am f’s chest,” “I am f’s chest, I am kne with kne, and walk the bridge on several occasions.”
Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on the control of crimes.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement by the defendant in court;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the statement protocol in C and F;
1. Articles 314 (1) and 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (Selection of each fine);
1. Articles 37 and 38 of the Criminal Act to increase concurrent crimes;
1. In light of the following facts: (a) a crime was committed in the course of the detention of a workhouse with the reason for sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act; and (b) a victim does not want punishment by calculating the awareness to the obstructing victim during the public trial; and (c) there was no history of punishment in the past ten years and only two times of fines.