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 May 4, 2017, at around 00:10 on May 4, 2017, the Defendant obstructed the victim F’s main shop operation by force for about 40 minutes due to the following: (a) the Defendant, under the influence of alcohol at the main point of “D” that is “D” and without any justifiable reason, boomed “compacting alcohol”; (b) the Defendant, a customer E, etc., took a bath to the customer; and (c) the Defendant dumpeded the patient at a certain point, and obstructed the victim F’s main shop operation.

2. At around 00:50 on May 4, 2017, the Defendant obstructed the performance of official duties, on the front of the main point of “D”, and on the same grounds as Paragraph 1, the Defendant obstructed the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties in relation to the police officer’s crime prevention and investigation by having the captain of a police station G police station in the Seosung-gu, Seosung-gu, who called “D,” sent back to his house, and prevented the police officer from entering the above main point and continuing to operate F’s main points. However, the Defendant did not return to his house, but did not return to his house, and the Defendant did not return to his house, and the Defendant interfered with the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties in relation to the police officer’s crime prevention and investigation.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with H;

1. A statement prepared by the F;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (to hear statements by victimized police officers);

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. It is true that the criminal liability of the defendant who has used violence against police officers who interfered with the task of the reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and who have been called out after being reported 112, and properly performed their official duties is not less easily.

However, the fact that the defendant is able to repent his mistake in depth and not repeat the crime, that is a crime that has committed contingently under the influence of alcohol, and the degree and degree of power in the obstruction of business.