Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On July 4, 2013, at around 16:15, the Defendant: (a) received 112 reports from the restaurant in Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, the Defendant: (b) was asked to check whether he would pay the drinking value from D District E and Gyeong F; (c) he would be able to do so; (d) he would have bitched bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch; (e) he would be bitch bitch bitch son; (e) he would have sold to the horse E; and (e) would have carried out an act that would be sealed by f by putting him with neck and f.

Accordingly, the Defendant and the Defendant G interfered with the handling of reports and the arrest of flagrant offenders, which are legitimate duties of police officers, E and F.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of each police statement statute to E and F;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime concerned;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The portion not guilty under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order

1. In the facts charged, the Defendant publicly insultingd the victim H (the 53 years of age per party, the remaining) who operates a restaurant of “C” in Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-si, with his customer, by “C. . . . . . . . to report to the police” and “C. . . . . . . . . . . . .”

2. The Defendant asserts that he was G and himself did not wish. According to evidence, the Defendant is also investigating agency only to the obstruction of the performance of official duties and did not receive any investigation at all. The Defendant stated two male names who were in the restaurant at the time when the accusation was prepared by H as the Defendant’s wife. However, the accusation does not clearly state whether both male and female persons wished to do so, only one of them, and the written statement written by H was written by H.