Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On August 2, 2017, around 22:25, the Defendant interfering with his/her duties was boarding a D private taxi operated by the victim C (65 years of age) in front of Gangnam-gu Seoul on the road, Gangnam-gu Seoul. However, when the victim was a prospective customer and demanded the Defendant to get off the taxi, the Defendant would refuse to get off the taxi as soon as he/she starts and became aware of the weather.

“The victim interfered with the taxi business of the victim by force, such as bringing the victim’s arms into the right elbow, rejecting the car, etc.

2. The Defendant violated the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act: (a) around August 2, 2017; (b) around 22:30, the F boxes located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, for G and Assistant H working in the influence of alcohol at the F Boxes located in Gangnam-gu, Seoul; and (c) “Is the son of this weather, n, and n’t the agreement.”

I would like to say 200,000 won in farch.

Dock 30 minutes, such as taking a bath, were conveyed by very rough words at a police box, which is a public office, in a riotous and disorderly manner.

3. On August 2, 2017, the Defendant violated the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act: (a) calls 119 even though the fire did not occur in the said police box before the said police box was installed; and (b) calls 119 to the F police box.

We look at the police station, which caused the death of the citizens, and we see whether the citizens died.

“A false report was made”.

4. On August 2, 2017, the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties: (a) at the front of a police box on August 23:10, 201; and (b) at the front of a police box on August 2, 2017, the security guards belonging to the said F police box who received a false report on the said paragraph (3) and requested the Defendant to leave the said police box and to return home to the Defendant.

“In doing so, assaulted the face of the I at least once.”

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. Statement made to I by the police;

1. Written Statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report (the sequence 3, 4, 5, 11, 12 of the evidence list);

1. Relevant Articles of the Act concerning the facts constituting the crime;