However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. On July 17, 2014, at the convenience store B and C around 03:10 on July 17, 2014, the Defendant interfered with the business of the Defendant: (a) expressed several explanations from the victim D, who is an employee of the convenience store, that the cash settlement needs to be made in order to charge the mobile phone distribution; (b) expressed several times that the victim D, who is an employee of the convenience store, “the settlement settlement by credit card; and (c) heard the horses to request the victim to use other convenience points; and (d) obstructed the victim’s business by force against D, who was 20 minutes of “Ya Da, Ba Ba,” and who was able to use other convenience points from the victim, thereby obstructing the victim’s business by force.

2. The Defendant: (a) threatened, at the date, time, and place specified in Paragraph (1) of this Article, the head of the performance of official duties to the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties by the police officer on maintaining order by pressing the border F of the Namyang Police Station E-gu Seoul Police Station, which was called out after receiving a report of 112 that the crew fess at a time and place; and (b) threatening F of the police station E-gu, Namyang Police Station: (c) interfered with the Defendant’s legitimate performance of duties by the police officer on maintaining order by pressinging the border F’s right hand hand hand hand hand hand hand hand hand hand hand hand, which gets home at a canter and fescing it.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to F and D;

1. Application of the victim Fagic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Articles 314(1) and 136(1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment for the crime; the choice of imprisonment with prison labor;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act / [Scope of Recommendation] The basic area (6-1 year and 4 months) of the obstruction of performance of official duties (6-1 year and 4 months) (no special person) and the range of comparison of punishment and recommendation types: 6-1 year and 1 year and 4 months (the standard of multiple crimes) shall be applied. Article 37 of the Criminal Act in which the sentencing guidelines have not been set.