Defendant shall be punished by a fine of seven million won.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On August 16, 2015, at around 00:30, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s business by force for approximately 30 minutes, including, but not limited to, the victim D (the 43-year old-old), who drinks a mixed-child drinking on the Kafbook operated by the victim D (the 43-year old-old), who, without any justifiable reason, took a bath to the other customer, and let the customer who was seated in the Kaffa while drinking the mixed-child drinking on the Kafa-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-gu

2. The Defendant, at the same time, and at the same place as Paragraph 1, threatened the Defendant, who was dispatched after receiving a report from 112, that the customer spawed a spaw at the Busan East Police Station F District G of the F District of the Busan East Police Station, by listening to the state of damage from D, and recommended the Defendant spawning and returning to the Republic of Korea on the ground that the spawn was bad, and thereby, threatened the Defendant with the snow of G due to his hand.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning the handling of 112 reports.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statements made to D and G;

1. Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business), Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with the performance of public duties) and the selection of each fine for a 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. The criminal defendant, who has had the same record as the reasons for sentencing in Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, committed again during the period of suspension of execution of his/her duties and obstructing the performance of official duties, is not likely to commit such crime.

However, the punishment as ordered shall be determined by taking into consideration the following factors: (a) the time of the crime; (b) there was an agreement with the victim D of the crime of interference with the performance of duties; (c) there was no direct physical assault against the victim police officers who interfered with the performance of duties; and (d) the victim police officers were taking the Defendant’s wife against the Defendant; and (e) other conditions of sentencing stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the support relationship of the