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 March 24, 2016, from around 06:00 to around 06:20, the Defendant: (a) stated that there was a complaint on the value of the goods purchased at the “D” store located in the Gangwon-gun Group C; (b) stated the victim E (the 59-year old-old-old-gu person) who is the owner of the store at the entrance of the above shop, who is the owner of the store at the above shop, “the 59-year-old person”; and (c) obstructed the victim’s business by force by avoiding disturbance, such as passing through sound.

2. The Defendant, at the time and place specified in Paragraph 1, demanded that the Defendant be forced to refrain from and withdraw from the act of interference with business by the police box belonging to the police box affiliated with the police box of the Stacking Police Station, who was called out after receiving a report that the Defendant spawn the Defendant’s spawn at a place specified in the said Paragraph 1, and that the said G “spa

“The breath of the breath, the bat of bat and the bat of the bat and the bat of the chest, and the bat of the chest.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. Each statement of H and E;

1. All on-site photographs;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties), and the choice of fines (the fact that the defendant has no criminal records exceeding the same kind of criminal records and fines, the fact that the defendant has no criminal records exceeding the same kind of criminal records and fines, brain color, dementia, etc., which could have a certain degree of impediment to the defendant's speech function, and such circumstance seems to have affected the conclusion of the crime committed in this case's crime committed)

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. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;