If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

1. On December 4, 2014, at around 00:47, the Defendant: (a) performed alcohol at the main point of “C” in Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul; (b) did not find an employee, and (c) took a bath to the victim D, who is an employee, on several occasions, “the same bit of bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitle, etc.” on several occasions; and (d) 30 minutes of bits of bitch knick and beer, etc. at the entrance.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's main management by force.

2. The Defendant committed an act of obstruction of performance of official duties, on his hand, assaulting the Defendant’s left side of the said F, including, at the time, at the time, at the place, 112 reported and sent, F, who was arrested the Defendant as a flagrant offender, who was suspected of interfering with his duties, and f, who was in order to run the patrol vehicle, by arresting the Defendant as a flagrant offender at the charge of interfering with his duties.

As a result, the suspect interfered with the police officer's 112 report processing and legitimate execution of duties related to the arrest of flagrant offenders.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Each statement made to F and D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (c-tv video recording materials);

1. Articles 136(1) and 314(1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of fines concerning the crime;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act of the Labor House Detention Act is that the Defendant did not make an effort to find his cot on his main part while under the influence of alcohol and caused the instant obstruction of performance of official duties by determining that the Defendant did not make an effort to find his cot on his main part, and that the police officer dispatched after receiving a report seems to have a biased attitude toward the main part, thereby leading to obstruction of performance of official duties. The Defendant’s judgment is under the influence of alcohol at that time.