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

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On July 27, 2018, around 22:00, the Defendant obstructed the victim D (47 tax) convenience store business by force of approximately 20 minutes, such as “C” convenience points located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and putting customers at large interest, and making them unable to enter the convenience store.

2. On July 27, 2018, at around 22:25, the Defendant obstructed the performance of official duties, as described in paragraph (1) 1, the Seoul sent out upon receipt of a report 112 from among the places where he was in a disturbance as described in paragraph (1) 1, and upon receipt of a report, the Defendant obstructed the Defendant’s legitimate performance of duties regarding the handling of reports by police officers, such as: (a) “I ambling, ambling, leaving well,” and “I ambling off,” by hand, E’s face and arms, and pushing the upper part of the chest.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made with respect to E and D;

1. Application of video CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 316(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 fines for the 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. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Circumstances unfavorable to the reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order: The circumstances that the defendant has no circumstances demanding the victim of interference with his/her duties, and that it is not good that the defendant interfered with his/her official duties by assaulting a police officer performing official duties and obstructing the execution of his/her duties are not good: The defendant appears to have committed the crime in this case, and all other circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing specified in the arguments in this case, such as the defendant's age, sex, career, home environment, motive for committing the crime, and circumstances after committing the crime, are considered.