[Defendant A] The defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. Around August 5, 2018, Defendant A interfered with Defendant A’s business on the ground that the victim F in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-si did not have the attitude of his employee, the Defendant interfered with Defendant A’s legitimate business affairs concerning the operation of the restaurant for the victim of approximately 15 minutes by force by avoiding disturbance, including why it would have been included in the cancellation of the order for weather order, and continuing to talk with the victim, and thus obstructing the Defendant’s legitimate business affairs concerning the operation of the restaurant for the victim of approximately 15 minutes of the disturbance by force.

2. On August 5, 2018, the Defendant: (a) expressed that, within the restaurant of the above “G” on the same grounds as paragraph (1) on August 5, 2018, the Defendant expressed that, on the ground that 112 police officers assigned to the site after having received a report on 112 on the same grounds as paragraph (1), I and police officers assigned to the H District would have been able to “sprink the sprinke” and “sprinke the sprinke” several times on the ground that I would be punished for the obstruction of performance of official duties; (b) expressed that I would be punished for the obstruction of performance of official duties; and (c) expressed that I would have expressed a desire to “spack the spicee arrested spice,” and

Accordingly, I arrested the defendant as a crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties, and attempted to injure the defendant by pushing the I in both hands, cutting the lush hand and cutting the left arms, and assaulting the rush with the rush of J on several occasions, making the rush with the rush and the rush with the rush with the rush of the rush of J.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of official duties concerning the dispatch of 112 reported police officers and arrest of flagrant offenders.

3. The Defendant C’s obstruction of performance of official duties had delayed arrest, such as: (a) the appearance that B is arrested as a flagrant offender at the same time and place as that of paragraph (2); and (b) the J saw, “I see that it would go in person, so I would be able to do so; and (c) the J sees both descendants of the J, and did not wear and unfold the lock.”

Accordingly, the defendant is called up to 112 reported by police officers.