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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

1. On February 11, 2016, at around 23:00, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s main duties by force by force, such as demanding female customers to sit in company with the main shop while drinking alcohol at the E main shop operated by the victim D in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and allowing female customers to go out of the main shop.

2. On February 12, 2016, the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties by assaulting a police officer with regard to the duty of reporting 112, on the ground that, upon receiving a report from around 02:55 on February 12, 2016, the Defendant: (a) sent to the E main shop specified in paragraph (1), and obstructed a police officer’s legitimate performance of duties concerning the duty of reporting 112, by assaulting a private person G (the age of 45) who was urged to return home; (b) threatening him/her to “to die by knick”; and (c) threatening him/her that he/she will return home from the victim G; and (d) making him/her force once the victim’s clothes

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of D;

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties), Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties) and the selection of fines for the crime;

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

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The crime of this case on the ground of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act with regard to the order of provisional payment order is deemed to have been subject to criticism as it interferes with the normal restaurant business of another person. The crime of this case is deemed to have exercised the force without permission of a police officer who wears his uniform and performs his duties.

However, considering the facts that the defendant is led to confession and reflect, that agreement is reached with the victim of business obstruction, that the defendant has no record of crime for a long time in addition to the previous criminal records, the defendant's age, sex behavior, environment, circumstances leading to the crime, etc., the order shall be comprehensively taken into account.