Defendant

A A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5 million, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 600,000.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

1. At around 06:45 on March 1, 2016, Defendant A: (a) 2, “D amusement theater” located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-gu; and (b) on the ground that the Defendant was arrested the Defendant as a current offender on the ground that the Defendant was arrested by the police officer F, who was called out upon receiving a report of 112 that he was frighting to his employees, the Defendant obstructed the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties regarding the handling of the reported case by 112, i.e., the police officer on his hand, who was unable to put the Defendant into the said F, etc.

2. Defendant B, at around 07:55 on March 1, 2016, the Defendant, while drunkly arrested B as a current offender on the grounds that he arrested B as a police officer for the foregoing reasons, she either imprisoned or frighted a riot of about 20 minutes, such as having the police officer I, etc., who was unable to put him into the workplace, and having the police officer I, etc. into the workplace, and had the police officer go through a very rough speech and behavior at the government office.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Statement made by the police with respect to F;

1. A H statement;

1. Application of CCTV Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts;

A. Defendant A: Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act; selection of fines

B. Defendant B: Article 3(3)1 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, and selection of fines

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

1. In the case of Defendant A with reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the nature of the crime appears to be light in light of the following: (a) details and details leading up to obstructing the performance of official duties; and (b) the fact that the police officer seems to have actually inflicted an injury;

However, in the case of Defendant B, considering the fact that there is no power to interfere with the performance of the same kind of official duties, it is a contingent crime under the influence of alcohol, and that it is against the crime late later, the degree of the disturbance and the degree of the disturbance, the punishment of the upper limit of the statutory penalty is severe.