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

1. On May 3, 2016, the Defendant interfered with the Defendant’s duties: (a) around 22:00, at the E main store operated by the victim D, the Defendant, on the ground that one of the Defendant’s daily activities, demanded the compensation of the defective victim’s damage in the machinery before the said store; (b) caused the victim to avoid disturbance, such as making the victim’s talk with the large amount of “n only one place of business,” and making the victim take a bath to “n only one place of business,” thereby obstructing the victim’s drinking business by force.

2. The Defendant obstructed the performance of official duties at the time and place specified in the above paragraph (1), and committed assault, such as breaking away the body of the above G, in order to be informed by the police officer G of the summary, etc. of the suspected crime following the arrest of a flagrant offender at the F police box affiliated with G, who was dispatched after being reported as the facts stated in the above paragraph (1).

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. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. Written statements of D;

112 Application of the 112 Reporting List and the Acts and subordinate statutes governing damaged photographs;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 316(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 selection of fines for the crime;

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

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the Defendant not only interfered with the victim D’s drinking house business, but also interferes with the police officer’s performance of duty after receiving a report on the crime, and thus, the Defendant’s liability for the crime is not minor.

However, the defendant recognizes each of the crimes of this case and reflects it, the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant by agreement with the victim D, the defendant is the first offender who has no record of criminal punishment until the defendant has yet to be punished, and the age, sex, and sexual behavior of the defendant.