1. The defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won;

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

Punishment of the crime

1. From September 1, 2014 to 22:40 on September 1, 2014, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s main business by force, such as drinking alcohol, drinking alcohol, return to the outdoor store in the trade name “E” of the victim D operation of the C Building 107 at the Namyang-si, and going to the beer and beer, leaving the beer and beer off, leaving the beer, leaving the beer, leaving the beer, leaving the beer, leaving the beer, leaving the beer, leaving the beer, thereby obstructing the victim’s main business.

2. The Defendant violated the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, from around 22:50 on September 1, 2014 to around 01:00 on September 2, 2014, 201, while under the influence of alcohol at the police box of the department located in Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-si, Namyang-gu, Namyang-si, for about two hours, “I will not be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be d to be d to be d to be d to be d to be d to be d to be d to be d to be d to be d

The crime of interference with business did not reach the degree of force.

With regard to the assertion that the act or duty has not been obstructed, health stand, and power refers to all the forces that can suppress the free will of the people. According to the following evidence, the defendant exceeded the gate, walked on the tables of the customers, frighting back to the table, or fluored off, and the degree of such act was acknowledged to the fact that customers reported to the police, and they had been on duty until sunrise. Thus, it is determined that the above act constitutes force, and that the risk of interference with business has also been caused, and that the defendant did not think that his duty has not been particularly obstructed due to the lack of the fact that the defendant caused the failure, alone, the victim D's statement alone does not interfere with the above recognition.

As to the crime of violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, the Defendant alleged that the police officer committed an act of disturbance, such as the statement of the facts charged, while keeping the Defendant from returning home at the police box without any ground, and treating the Defendant unfairly. Thus, the Defendant did not commit an act of disturbance as stated in the facts charged. However, the Defendant asserted the facts charged as follows.