When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

1. Around 22:40 on April 30, 2018, the Defendant interfered with the business of the victim, at the entrance of the apartment site of the United Nations, the Defendant: (a) arrived at the destination where the victim B was boarding and leaving a cab operated by the victim B; (b) continued to sit at the taxi without getting out of the taxi; (c) and (d) expressed the victim’s desire to “I am off from the cab, I am off, I am off the cab, I am off, I am the driver to “I am off, I am off, I am off, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am on the back of the 25 minutes am, such as the driver’s seat four times in drinking, and thereby, interfered with the victim’s business by getting off the cab.

2. The Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties, at the same time, at the same place as paragraph 1, and at the same time, at the same place as that of paragraph 1, “not getting off a taxi,” and “not getting out of a taxi” was asked by the police officer D, a police officer called out after having received a 112 report, and the police officer D, who was on the spot, was going to be asked about the background of the occurrence of the instant case from the Inspector E, and was able to get out of another place, and used a breaman D’s breath to breath by carrying a breath’s breath, and used a breath’s blaf’s blaf’s blaf

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning 112 report processing.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made with respect to B, E, and D;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. Notification to a department related to the report of 112 case, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning violence against victims;

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

1. The crime of this case with the reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the Provisional Payment Order was committed by assaulting a police officer who obstructed the business of a taxi engineer, and breaths the breath, etc., to perform his official duties.