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

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

1. On August 15, 2013, at around 12:15, the Defendant interfered with business, at the “C convenience store” located in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, the Defendant interfered with the business of the victim’s convenience store operation by: (a) reporting the Defendant who was an employee of the victim D, who was a part of the above convenience store floor, was shouldered; and (b) the police officer called the victim’s humping; and (c) taking the victim’s humping at the convenience store and humd the victim’s humping on the floor; and (d) taking the victim’s 20 minutes of the disturbance by force.

2. The Defendant obstructed the police officer’s legitimate performance of official duties by assaulting the police officer, such as a slope F of the E box called out after receiving a report that there was a person who is not at a convenience store in drinking at the time, time, and place specified in Paragraph (1) of the same Article, and the police officer G, who was called out, prevented the victim from wearing the pedal as above. The Defendant f of the E box and the police officer G, who was sent to the police station, took a heavy bath to the police officer, booms both the slopeF’s bridge by hand, cutting down the slopingF’s two legs by hand.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to D or F;

1. G statements;

1. Application of the provisions of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the dead-style photographs and third-class photographs of the victimized police officer;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 (Mutual Crimes of Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties)

1. Selection of each alternative fine for punishment;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act is that the defendant agreed with the convenience store owner of the crime of interference with business, and that the defendant has no power to impose any criminal punishment other than that of violence at least once every 20 years, and that the defendant reflects the above crime, etc., shall be punished by a fine.

The summary of the facts charged as to assault and assault among the facts charged in the instant case is the date and time indicated in paragraph (1) of the crime.