Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Criminal facts

1. On December 29, 2014, from around 20:30 to 21:35 of the same day, the Defendant interfered with the business of the victim in Kim Jong-si’s operation restaurant, which was in dispute with the victim’s husband E and the victim’s husband E with the food value, and thus, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s restaurant operation by force by avoiding disturbance, such as “hump is not good, and thus, 8,000 won is less than 8,000 won.”

2. The Defendant continued to engage in the obstruction of performance of official duties, who was demanded from G in the circumstances surrounding the Kim Jong-gu Police Station F District Unit, to “to enter a restaurant and return to the restaurant.” However, he had his head three times on the street in the vicinity, etc., and had boomed G’s chests over about 20 times.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the protection of the people's body and property and the prevention of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police officer's statement about D and G;

1. Each statement of H and I;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to field photographs and photographs damaged by victims;

1. Article 314 (1) and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act of the relevant Article of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense (the occupation of obstruction of performance of official duties and the choice of fines);

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act to increase concurrent crimes;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act Article 334(1) of the provisional payment order is that the defendant is not well aware of the fact that he is a repeated offender, and is highly likely to be subject to criticism

However, the defendant who is suffering from intellectual disability (class 3) seems to have reached the crime of this case by contingency while being placed, and the defendant has repented his mistake in depth.