However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

(e).

1. On November 19, 2017, around 02:55, the Defendant interfered with the business of the victim’s restaurant business by avoiding disturbance, such as drinking noise from “D cafeteria” operated by the victim B (V, 48 years of age) located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and collecting trial fees from customers on the next table, thereby obstructing the victim’s restaurant business by force for approximately 30 minutes.

2. Around November 19, 2017, around 03:35, the Defendant insultd the victim publicly by saying, “A police officer slope G (47 years old) who was a victim of another police officer at the place where another police officer exists in the F District located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul, the Defendant: (a) fluored the victim “h by breaking a fluor; fluor, fluor, fluor, fluor, fluor, fluor.”

3. On November 19, 2017, at around 07:55, the Defendant: (a) was investigated by the police station in Yangcheon-gu, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul, 9 Yangcheon Police Station and at the I Team office, he was investigated into the suspicion of interference with duties, etc.; (b) stated the Defendant’s “J” in the Defendant’s column for the purpose of exercising the signature and seal on the witness column in the suspect interrogation protocol from K during the above police station; and (c) submitted the signature to the said K as if it was duly formed; and (d) submitted it to the said K as if it was duly formed.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Application of B and G’s written laws and regulations

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business, the selection of imprisonment), Article 311 (Voluntary Selection), Article 239(1) (the point of private signature), Article 239(2) and Article 239(1) (the point of exercising a signature of the above investigation) of the Criminal Act concerning 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. The defendant, on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, has obstructed the victim’s main duties, and had the police officer called out upon receiving a report, expressed his/her desire to do so, and at the police station.