A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Punishment of the crime

On March 15, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the obstruction of performance of official duties, etc. by the Ulsan District Court on March 15, 2018, and on September 12, 2018, the Defendant completed the enforcement of the sentence.

1. On March 15, 2020, at the D convenience store operated by the victim C in Seosan City, around 00:51 on March 15, 2020, the Defendant: (a) stated that at the convenience store operated by the victim C, he would be refunded three public disease deposits for beer; (b) however, he would be refunded only one public disease deposit for reasons such as the contamination of foreign substances; (c) and (d) expressed that he and his employees “Ig Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?. ? ? ? ?....

2. The injured Defendant: (a) committed the act of disturbance of the Defendant, such as the date, time, place, and convenience store employees as described in the above paragraph (1) above; (b) obstructed the Defendant’s act of disturbance; and (c) asked the part of the Victim’s hand, thereby asking the Victim for about two weeks of treatment; and (d) inflicted injury on the Victim, such as fingers and grandchildren, which requires approximately two weeks of treatment.

3. Performance of official duties.

A. The date and time, at the place indicated in the above paragraph (1) above, the Defendant expressed that “Neging son spath.............” was frighted from G belonging to the F District District of the Seosan Police Station, which was dispatched after receiving 112 a report, and expressed that he was frighting from G to the convenience point glass wall to the above convenience point glass wall, and that the above G was frighting to “Yeg spath spath and spath.........................., the Defendant fright the above G’s left part, which he tried to arrest the Defendant as a flagrant offender in the obstruction of the performance of official duties.

Accordingly, the defendant is justified in dealing with the 112 reported case by police officers and arresting flagrant offenders.