Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On May 8, 2014, at around 02:00, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s singing room business by force for about 30 minutes by avoiding disturbance, such as having the victim E (here, 54 years of age) (here, she) who is the business owner in the place of the “Ding room” located in Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, with a large amount of talking.

2. On May 8, 2014, around 02:45, the Defendant: (a) arrested the other party as a flagrant offender of assault at the G District Office of the Incheon Bupyeong-gu Incheon Bupyeong-gu Police Station G District Office; and (b) told the police officer, who belongs to the above police station, to the police officer of the above police station, that “I am son, son, son, son, son, son, son, son, son, son, son, son, son, son, son, son, son, son, son, son, son, son, son, son, son, son.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the police officer's maintenance of public order and legitimate execution of duties in the district.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police interrogation protocol against I and J;

1. Application of each police protocol of statement to H and E;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (a point of interference with business) and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting the crime;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment (including the fact that the person's fault is against his/her own fault and that the degree of obstruction of performance of official duties and obstruction of performance of official duties is insignificant);

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

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

1. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act stated that the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime. Thus, according to the records, the Defendant is deemed to have provided drinking at the time of each of the instant crimes, but in light of all the circumstances, such as the background and method of the crime, the details of the crime, and the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime.