1. The defendant shall be punished by a fine of 4,000,000 (private million).

2. When the defendant does not pay a fine, 10,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

1. From February 2, 2015 to around 00:40 on February 2, 2015, the Defendant: (a) from the perspective of “E” operated by the victim D during a period of about one hour, the Defendant was unable to pay the alcohol value while making the victim and the trial expenses due to the drinking value; and (b) was collected from the victim and the other customers; and (c) was collected from the victim’s disease and the day-to-day visit, etc. in the surrounding area; and (d) caused them to go out of the main place, thereby obstructing the victim’s main business by force.

2. The Defendant had received a report at the same time and at the place as referred to in the preceding paragraph, and obstructed the legitimate performance of official duties in relation to G’s crime prevention, who is a police official, by assaulting G’s bridge on the floor by continuing to engage in a frisome frist, while “Crist frist frist and frith frith frith frith frith frith frith frith frith frith frith frith frith frith frith frith frith

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the police record concerning D and G;

1. Application of the receipt statute

1. Articles 314 (1) and 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of the penalty provided for in the Act on Business with Serious Interference with Business);

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

1. The Defendant, on the grounds of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, led to the confession and reflect on the instant crime.

In consultation with the victim of interference with business, the victim expressed his/her intention not to punish him/her.

Although the degree of interference with business, the degree of interference with the performance of official duties is serious, considering the fact that the same mistake is not repeated, it is decided as ordered by the fine.