[Criminal Power] On June 23, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment for obstruction of performance of official duties by the Suwon District Court on April 23, 201 and completed the execution of the sentence in the military prison on April 23, 2012.

【Criminal Facts】

1. On July 14, 2013, at around 00:15, the Defendant interfered with his duties: (a) at the “Eju shop operated by the victim D in Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si; and (b) at the Eju shop, the victim and other customers are slick; (c) the victim and the other customers are slick; and (d) the Defendant continuously ordered the above main shop and the above main shop, but the victim did not bring alcohol, but ordered the above main shop, the Defendant slick the cooling house in his hand, sleeped the drinking room in his hands, and laid down the drinking and drinking water disease on the floor; and (d) the victim, “the victim might interfere with his business,” and (e) the victim, who was in prison, should take the place outside of the said main bar, such as the victim’s desire to grow, should have been obstructed by force.

2. On July 14, 2013, at around 00:25, the Defendant: (a) stated that the Defendant did not disclose the Defendant’s personal information, as in paragraph (1) of this Article, the police box of the Chungcheongnam-gu Police Station Fagu, Chungcheongnam-gu; (b) G where the Defendant was sent to the Defendant after receiving a report, and that the Defendant did not disclose the Defendant’s personal information, and that the Defendant did not “I”, thereby doing so; (c) thereby, the Defendant was able to take a bath to the effect that “I will see the Defendant as a flagrant offender for the crime of interference with business; (d) he died of the Defendant; and (e) he died of the scar; and (e) throw the scar; and (e) laid off the Defendant’s part of the said H’s mouth on his hand; and (e) did so beyond the scope of the scarb and the tension in which the Defendant was in need of treatment for approximately 2 weeks.

Accordingly, the defendant is justified in relation to the handling of reports by police officers.