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 January 12, 2017, the Defendant interfering with business affairs: (a) leaves a large amount of noise within the “D convenience store located in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon; (b) leaves the floor of the floor to the victim E (V, 29 years of age) who is an employee of the convenience store.

The act of attempting to make physical contacts and continuously taking advantage of the above convenience points has been repeated so that it interferes with the management of convenience points of the victim by force.

2. The Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties at the time and place specified in paragraph 1, and at the same time and place specified in paragraph 1, and was demanded to return home from G to the police officer belonging to the F District of the Incheon Western Police Station, which was called out after receiving a report of the above E, and was assaulted by the Defendant on the chest part of the Defendant’s chest.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning 112 report handling duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. E statements;

1. Investigation report (victim's statement and net 10);

1. Application of the CCTV images (8) and each photograph (9) statute to the convenience store;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 316(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business), Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with the performance of public 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. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the act of the defendant related to the obstruction of the performance of official duties of this case does not constitute an assault against the obstruction of the performance of official duties of this case. However, according to each of the above evidence, it is recognized that the defendant has exercised the same tangible power as the facts stated in the judgment with respect to the police where the defendant properly performs his duties, and the exercise of direct tangible power against such public official constitutes an assault as to the obstruction of the performance of official duties of this case. Thus, the above argument is rejected.

Defendant

(b).