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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

Punishment of the crime

1. On October 20, 2014, at around 23:30 on October 20, 2014, the Defendant interfered with his/her duties: (a) at the E-place operated by the victim D in Gangseo-si, Gangnam-si, the Defendant: (b) placed the victim D, who was under the influence of alcohol, wanting to take a singing only while drinking; (c) placed the victim’s bar business on the ground that he/she refused it; (d) together with B, the Defendant “Isle, Isle, I would be able to refuse customers, and will be able to carry out funeral services appropriately; and (d) thrown away cigarette but interfered with the victim’s bar business business by force for about 20 minutes, such as b0 minutes.

2. The Defendant expressed that the police officer slope G, who was called up with the notification of 112 on the grounds as stated in the above paragraph (1), at the time, at the place, and on the same grounds as stated in the above paragraph (1), attempted to arrest the Defendant as a flagrant offender, and obstructed the police officer’s 112 notification processing duties and the arrest duties of flagrant offender by assaulting the Defendant, such as shot G, who was called up to the police officer’s frank G, with the intention of arresting the Defendant as a flagrant offender. The Defendant obstructed the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties concerning the notification processing duties and arrest of flagrant offender.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police officer's statement about D and G;

1. Application of statutes on photographs of damage;

1. Relevant Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 314(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 fact that there was an agreement with the victim D for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order, there was no record of punishment for the same kind of crime, in particular, there was no record of punishment since around November 2004, and the fact that there was no depth reflects the degree of violence, such as when the face of a police officer who is performing legitimate duties due to drinking, cannot be deemed to be less light of the degree of violence.