Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 1,000,000, and by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The Defendants respectively.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendants indicated in the indictment around October 7, 2017 as 12:00 on the bill of indictment, but according to the evidence, the Defendants acknowledged the fact that they were requested to leave 13:10 to the extent that the identity of the facts charged is recognized, and this is within the extent that does not put any substantial disadvantage to the Defendants’ defense, and thus, ex officio modification is made without going through the procedures for modification of indictment.

Although the victim D(n, 61 years of age) in the assigned group C received a request from an injured party who intends to carry on business to go to the hospital while drinking alcohol together at the E restaurant operated by the victim D(n, 61 years of age) to leave the restaurant, the victim's report at around 14:00 of the same day rejected the victim's request for evacuation without justifiable reasons until the police officer is dispatched to the site.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report internal investigation (in-site investigation into the current state);

1. Relevant Articles 319(2), 319(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act, and the Defendants’ choice of punishment regarding criminal facts

1. Defendants to be detained in the workhouse: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: The reasons for sentencing Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act recognize the Defendants’ mistake, and the victim did not want the punishment against the Defendants.

In addition, the defendant's age, criminal records (the defendants do not have the same kind of criminal records, and the defendant B is under the period of suspension of execution), sexual conduct, criminal records, etc. shall be determined as per the order.

Innocence (Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties)

1. The summary of the facts charged, around 14:00 on October 7, 2017, Defendant A asked G and Police Officer H, etc., the police officer of the police station assigned to the site, who was sent to the site after receiving a report of 112 on the street in front of the above restaurant, to go to the above restaurant, but refused to comply with the speech, etc., and the said police officer requested the support from the assistant assistant I, the assistant J., etc. of the police officer belonging to the same patrol group.