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 January 21, 2018, from around 01:30 to around 02:11 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) demanded the victim E who had worked at the said restaurant in the state of alcohol to charge the mobile phone at the said restaurant; and (b) demanded the victim E who had worked at the said restaurant in the state of alcohol to fill the mobile phone at the said restaurant; and (c) demanded the victim E to hear the speech that there is no filling period; and (d) “It is able to be combined with the restaurant service because the cell phone charging machine at the ASEAN and the restaurant of the same year has no filling machine at the restaurant.

The victim’s business operation was obstructed by threat of force, such as rashing and heighting the disturbance.

2. The Defendant: (a) was found to have a defect in the victim G, the captain of the police station F District of the Chungcheongbuk-do, who was called up after having received a report at the time, time, place, and intended to take the Defendant out of the said restaurant and control the Defendant; and (b) while there are other people, “the police of the rackers.”

The victim publicly insultingd the victim by “”.

Summary of Evidence

1. The legal statements of H and E, and part of I's legal statements;

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

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to arrest and report cases;

1. Articles 311 and 314 (1) of the Criminal Act and the selection of fines for criminal facts;

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. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. Determination as to the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which bear the costs of lawsuit

1. The Defendant alleged that he was aware of the complaints about the services of the restaurant at the time, at the time, at the place, and at the ruling, and told the police officer to wear the cafeteria or to take a bath at the cafeteria, and even if the Defendant took a bath, as stated in its reasoning, the Defendant provided a bath to the police officer.

Even if there is no performance.

2. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined, the Defendant’s restaurant business for the victimized person as stated in its reasoning.