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 January 23, 2019, the Defendant: (a) was under the influence of liquor at the C convenience store in Gyeyang-gu Incheon Gyeyang-gu, Incheon; (b) purchased tobacco from the victim D (23 years of age) who is an employee of the said convenience store; (c) was refused to receive a taxi; and (d) was able to avoid disturbance for about 15 minutes, such as taking on the calculation unit of the C convenience store and taking a bath.

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

2. The Defendant, who received a report at the time and place specified in paragraph (1) of the same Article, stated that the Inspector F (the age of 47) who is a police officer belonging to the Incheon Gyeyang Police Station Estation, sent out after having taken the Defendant out of the convenience store, would prevent the Defendant from entering the said facility, and that he would become a governance member of the said F. In drinking, the Defendant took one time at the left face of the said F.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers related to criminal investigation.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to F and D;

1. Written statements prepared in D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (CCTV image verification);

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of each fine for the crime;

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. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act requires strict punishment for the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties as an offense detrimental to the function of the State by nullifying the legitimate exercise of public authority.

The Defendant was unable to reach an agreement with the victim of obstruction of business.

However, it shows that the defendant led to the confession of the crime, and there is no criminal record exceeding the same criminal record and fine for the obstruction of performance of official duties, and the degree of obstruction of official duties and obstruction of performance of official duties.