Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On May 7, 2017, the Defendant: (a) deemed that he/she was arguing while working and drinking in a 'C' restaurant located in Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Nam-si, at around 19:50 on May 7, 2017; and (b) stated that the victim D, the owner of the place of business, would go out of the restaurant, and caused the victim’s restaurant operation by force to avoid disturbance for about 30 minutes, such as having the victim take a bath to the victim, and having eight customers find out of the restaurant, by not later than 20:20 the same day.

2. On May 7, 2017, at around 20:00, the Defendant assaulted each of the above places, at the foregoing time, on the face of the victim E (V, 45 years of age) who is the owner of the restaurant, one time at the seat of the victim E (V, 45 years of age), who is the owner of the restaurant, and continuously used the face of the victim D ( South, 49 years of age) who is the owner of the restaurant.

3. The Defendant damaged property at the same time and place as paragraph 2, and at the same time and place, the victim E, the owner of the above restaurant, damaged two tables equivalent to KRW 300,000, which are owned by the victim E, thereby impairing its utility.

4. On May 7, 2017, the Defendant obstructed the performance of official duties at around 20:20, the Defendant committed assault, such as: (a) the police officer, who was the police officer at the Southern Port Police Station F Station at the Southern Port, called out after receiving a report of 112 at the said place; (b) the Defendant continued to interfere with his duties, and (c) the police officer’s failure to arrest the Defendant as a current offender; (d) the police officer, by hand, carried the breath’s flab, carried the flab, carried the Defendant’s flab, carried the flab, carried the Defendant’s flab, and pushed the Defendant over the floor by pushing the head and the

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of official duties concerning the handling of 112 reported cases by police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made in relation to D, E, H, and G;

1. Application of the written estimate statutes;

1. Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense (the point of interference with business), Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of violence), Article 366 of the Criminal Act, and Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with the performance of official duties)

1. Commercial concurrence;