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 August 17, 2017, the Defendant interfered with the Defendant’s business by force for about 20 minutes, such as 'D main points located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, and 'D main points' to the victim E (n, e.g., f., 50 years of age) who is the owner of the place of business. The Defendant interfered with the victim’s main points business by force for about 20 minutes, such as referring to the flaping of the flap, flap, or flaping the flap.

2. The Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties, at the same time and place as set forth in paragraph 1, and at the same time and place as set forth in paragraph 1, and at the same time and place as set forth in 112, obstructed the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties in relation to the handling of 112 reports by committing assaulting him/her, i.e., the lower court, who was on the part of his/her superior to the F District District of the Ulsan Southern District Police Station that was called up with the 112 report, with his/her desire to

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement protocol with respect to G and E;

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

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 314 of the Act that obstructs the performance of official duties by selecting fines: Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act and the selection of fines;

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 reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act include: (a) the Defendant committed a crime of interference with duties and committed a crime of interference with the performance of official duties; (b) the face of a police officer is assaulted to the police officer to the extent that the degree of interference with the performance of official duties is not negligible (the police officer at the time was to the extent of non-compliance); (c) however, the Defendant agreed as soon as possible with the victim of the crime of interference with duties; (d) the police officer was the Defendant’s wife; (e) there was no record of punishment against the Defendant; and (e) there was no record of