If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

On October 30, 2013, around 18:35, the Defendant made a dispute with the Defendant on the ground that the employee of the restaurant is influenced after drinking alcohol on the front of the D main office located in the Southern-gu Busan Metropolitan City C.

Upon receipt of the report, the Defendant saw the Defendant to go out of the main point in order to identify the instant case by FF of the Busan Southern Police Station E District E District, the Busan Southern Police Station E District G, and was called out of the main point of the Defendant. The Defendant saw the trees of slope G on two occasions, followed up the spath of the spath, and spath of the Fth of the spath, and spath of the spath of the spath.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of official duties, such as kneeing to the knee of the F.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to F and G by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the investigation report;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

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

1. The Defendant’s defense counsel in determining the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, even if the Defendant was unable to avoid disturbance at the main place, the Defendant’s disturbance was stopped at the time when the police officer received a report and called the main place. After that, the Defendant’s refusal of the police officer’s demand for voluntary movement cannot be deemed to interfere with the lawful performance of official duties by allowing the police officer to refuse it, and the Defendant’s resistance was forced by the police officer, and thus, the illegality of the act of self-defense as a self-defense is dismissed.

According to the records, the police F and G contact with 112 reports to the effect that the Defendant is able to take a bath in the main place (hereinafter “instant site”), and that he was called to the instant site, and that the Defendant was damaged in the instant site, and that the staff of the main place was identified as a crime interfering with the Defendant’s business, and F and G are the circumstances of the instant case.