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

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On January 12, 2018, the Defendant: (a) obstructed the victim’s main business by force by avoiding disturbance for about 20 minutes; (b) obstructed the victim’s main business under the influence of avoiding disturbance, i.e., the victim C (the 57-year old-old bars) in Osan City’s 20 minutes.

2. On January 12, 2018, the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties, on the ground that, around 20:50 on January 12, 2018, the Defendant: (a) obstructed the Defendant by: (b) obstructed the Defendant, who was a police officer F of the E District Police Station E District of the Mosdong Police Station, sent out after receiving a report 112, with other customers; and (c) assaulted the said police officer by “Is that Is that Is that Is that Is that Is that Is that Is that Is.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to F and C;

1. 112 Reporting case handling table;

1. Application of the investigation report (Attachment toCCTV), CCTV-cape photographs, and CCTV reproduction c.D. 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, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the said Act (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes against a person who interferes with heavier business affairs);

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, from 1972 to 2001, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment once to a crime related to violence (the crime of robbery) and three times a suspended sentence of imprisonment (including one time a crime of robbery in the performance of official duties). Thus, the Defendant again committed the instant crime, even though he was well aware that his violent inclination and violent tendency in drinking were bomb, and again committed the instant crime. The Defendant, without any justifiable reason, interfered with his duties by exercising force against a police officer who intends to resolve it, and by exercising assault against a police officer to solve it, was a public authority with respect to the enforcement of the Act.