A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Punishment of the crime

1. On August 25, 2016, at around 21:30 on August 25, 2016, the Defendant interfered with the business of the Defendant: (a) laid the floor of the victim D’s “Earina” in the second floor of the “Earina” operated by the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, with no justifiable reason; and (b) obstructed the victim’s friendship or business by force, such as huming the horses “for another customer, huming for about 40 minutes; and (c) huming the trees, fire extinguishers, and hump, etc. in the above area of the water room, and huming the customers who were in the above humna, left the area, thereby obstructing the victim’s friendship or business affairs.

2. On August 25, 2016, the Defendant of the obstruction of performance of official duties: (a) assaulted the police officer G, who was a police officer belonging to the F District of the Incheon Southern Police Station, who was dispatched after receiving a report of 112 that he avoided disturbance as described in paragraph (1) on August 25, 2016; and (b) requested him to board the patrol vehicle after being arrested as an flagrant offender due to the reasons described in paragraph (1); (c) assaulted him, such as the head debt of the said G; and the wheels with the right hand hand hand hand of the said G, thereby obstructing the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties concerning the prevention, suppression, and investigation of the crime.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness H;

1. Each police statement made to G, H, D, and I;

1. Video CDs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report and field situations;

1. The defendant and his/her defense counsel, who selected the punishment for the crime, Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the obstruction of performance of official duties), and Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act, asserts that the defendant, as stated in the facts charged, did not interfere with his/her duties and obstruction of performance of official duties, merely against the police officer’

In light of the witness who observed the business obstruction of this case and the police statements sent to the site at the time, it can be recognized that the defendant committed the same crime as the facts charged.