Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,800,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On September 6, 2017, at around 22:15, the Defendant: (a) obstructed the business of the Defendant: (b) expressed that “E” restaurant operated by Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Victim D (32C); (c) as the Defendant, while smoking tobacco expected on a wooden rail that is outside a restaurant, such as F, he/she was able to drink as “the victim’s head,” the Defendant, who is the victim’s head, “hinging, inging,” and talking with the Defendant by “hing, smoking,” and having the other customers who were in the restaurant, desire to boom with the other customers, without calculating the drinking value, without calculating the drinking value; and (d) failed to take a disturbance for about 20 minutes, such as smoking, she was trying to put them into a horse with the other customers.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspiredd with F and thereby interfered with the victim's restaurant business by force.

2. The Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties, at the time and place specified in paragraph 1, and at the place specified in paragraph 1, “at a restaurant by two to three persons,” the Defendant confirmed the first class of H belonging to the Seoul Young Military Police Station, and recommended the Defendant to stop and return home to the country any longer, the Defendant: “Chewing”, “in the case of a police officer, he will do so, to do so, and will not do so if he see in China,” and the Defendant saw the front rail of the above restaurant, and the Defendant 1 sealed the said restaurant by driving the said I on his left hand.

The facts charged are as follows: "The breast part was made once by drinking to the left hand."

“ However, according to the evidence, the evidence was found to have gone unsatisfy than that of the Plaintiff.

It is reasonable to view it.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of reported cases and the maintenance of order by police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's legal statement (the third public trial date);

1. Entry of the defendant in part in the first trial record;

1. Statement made to I by the police;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes of K;

1. Article 314(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (Interference with business affairs) concerning the relevant criminal facts and the choice of punishment;