Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. Around 20:00 on August 28, 2012, the Defendant interfered with the business, from the “F” room of the E’s operation where D in Seopo-si C works as an employee, talked with a large amount of speech for those who play a game, and sleeped.

As such, G, who operated a game at the above place, said place, said that “drawing, fluoring,” the Defendant interfered with the above PC work by force, such as “packers, fluor,” “packers,” and “packers,” and “packers,” and “packers, out of 3 customers, by leaving about 20 minutes of the PC.”

2. On August 28, 2012, at around 20:25, the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties, the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties by assaulting a police officer’s chest part of H’s chest, who was dispatched to a place specified in paragraph (1), by assaulting a police officer’s chest, who was dispatched to a police officer, by not interfering with the Defendant’s business, and going out of the Defendant, such as h, h, h, h, chack, chack, and h, h, h, h, h, h, h, and h, h, h, h, h, h, h, h, and h, h, h, h, h, h, h, h, and h, h, h.,

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's legal statement (the third trial date);

1. Each police statement made to D or I;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of each fine for the crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order shall be determined as the same as the order in consideration of the fact that the defendant has led to the crime of this case, the fact that the defendant has committed the crime of this case, the fact that the victim with the obstruction of business has agreed smoothly with