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.

On December 10, 2015, the Defendant: (a) 22:00 on December 10, 2015, at the “D” restaurant for the victim C’s operation located in the Mapopo-si located in the Mapo-si; (b) was under the influence of alcohol, and (c) was boomed to the employees of the said Mapo-dong belt with the said Mapo-dong belt, and the said employees were assaulted in front of the restaurant.

Accordingly, the police officers such as the security guards and F of the E District Team belonging to the Military Police Station in the military police station were dispatched to the site after reporting to 112.

As above, the police officers who were so dispatched listen to the circumstances of the case against the persons involved, and the Defendant “I have been why the police has been dissatisfed;

."Chewing ..." and Chewing the water tank on the table before the kitchen, humping the water tank in hand, and breathing the breath of the above breath in hand.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the victim C’s restaurant business by force, and interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of reported case by the 112 reported case F.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to F and C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning visual CCTV recording CDs in the field;

1. Relevant Article 136 of the Criminal Act, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties), Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing duties) and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor 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. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Application of the sentencing criteria;

(a) Interference with the performance of official duties in its holding [the type of decision] Obstruction of the performance of official duties, Type 1 (Obstruction of the Performance of Official Duties and Forced Performance of Duties] (the territory of recommendations and the scope of punishment): Imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months from one year and four months;

(b) Interference with the business of the judgment [the type of decision] Interference with the business, interference with the business, and Type 1 (Interference with Business) [Special Sentencing Person] Reduction element: Non- sources of punishment (the area of recommendation and the scope of recommendation): Imprisonment with labor for one month to eight months;

(c) Scope of final recommendations based on the standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months from one year and eight months;

2. Determination of sentence;