Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On May 20, 2018, the Defendant: (a) around 20:20, the two floors of “D” operated by Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Victim C, and (b) caused customers who had been outside of the said floors, such as drinking together with drinking and drinking together with drinking, and sicking so that they can get out of the counter, such as cutting off a brue, cutting off a brue, cutting off a brue, and cutting over a brue.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's restaurant business by force.

2. 공무집행방해 피고인은 제1항 기재 일시, 장소에서, 손님들이 다투고 있다는 112신고를 받고 그곳에 출동한 서울종로경찰서 E파출소 소속 순경 F으로부터 행패부리는 것을 제지당하자 ”죽여버린다“고 고함을 지르고, 발로 위 F의 다리 부위를 1회 찼다.

As a result, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers in relation to 112 reporting processing duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of the accused in the first protocol of trial;

1. Each police statement made to F and C;

1. G statements;

1. A report on investigation (a list of evidence Nos. 7, 9, 11, 14);

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstruction of performance of official duties and the choice of fines) concerning criminal facts;

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. In order to establish the legal order of the country with reason for sentencing the sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and eradicate the light of public authority, there is a need to strictly punish the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, and the Defendant is not able to receive any tolerance from the victim of the crime of interference with business.

However, the defendant confessions the crime of this case and repents his mistake, and the damage suffered by the police officer is relatively minor, and the age, character, character and environment of the defendant is relatively minor.