Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 6 million won.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On June 20, 2019, at around 17:10 on June 20, 2019, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s restaurant service by forcibly avoiding disturbance, such as entering the “D” restaurant operated by the victim C in Daejeon Dong-gu, Daejeon, and taking meals on the table table, without any justifiable reason, the Defendant 13 customers, who were eating in the table table, were 13.

2. The Defendant expressed the police officer F and G belonging to the Daejeon East Police Station E Zone Group of the Daejeon Police Station, who was dispatched after receiving a report from C at the time and place specified in the foregoing paragraph (1), out of the restaurant, and recommended the Defendant to return home again, and recommended the Defendant to stop him/her to enter the restaurant several times, the Defendant stated that “I am flick, flick, knick, knicked, knicked, knicked, knicked,” and that he/she expressed two times at the left hand son of the F.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on handling 112 reports.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. C’s statement;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing CCTV screen CDs at Dcafeterias;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of fines for the crime;

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

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

1. Consideration of the fact that the sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order is based on the criminal record of the defendant, the relationship of the criminal record of the crime committed by the victim interfering with the business of this case, and the defendant was detained for a considerable period of time