Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On March 23, 2017, at the D convenience store where the victim C works in Seosan City-si B on March 23, 2017, the Defendant interfered with his/her duties, without any justifiable reason, to the victim as to whether he/she is engaged in weather, weather, sp. p.s.

“In doing so, it interfered with the victim’s convenience store management and business operation for about 15 minutes, such as making the sugar in front of the calculator who was in front of the calculator at the calculator and put the calculator on the floor so that the calculator can not enter the calculator, etc.

2. The Defendant, as a insult, was insulting, on March 23, 2017, on the grounds that the Defendant was unable to evade the disturbance at the convenience stores as set forth in paragraph 1 of the same Article, and the Defendant was requested by the victim F, a police officer affiliated with the police box, who was dispatched to the scene after receiving the report, to present his/her identification card from the victim F, who was requested by the above C and the dispatched police officer to present his/her identification card, while being kept by the victim F;

The victim openly insultingd the victim by citing this arbitr in a large sense.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. C’s statement;

1. A president of the F;

1. Application of statutes governing field photographs at the time of dispatch;

1. Article 314 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Articles 314(1) and 311 of the Criminal Act, 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. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant asserted that he was in a state of mental or physical weakness or loss by drinking at the time of committing the instant crime. Thus, according to the records, the Defendant was aware of drinking at the time of committing the instant crime, but in full view of the circumstances such as the background and result of the instant case, the Defendant’s behavior before and after committing the crime, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant did not have or lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions. Therefore, the above assertion is difficult.