[criminal power] The Defendant was sentenced to two years of suspended sentence for the crime of interference with business at the Seoul Southern District Court on May 18, 2017, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on May 26, 2017, and is still under suspended sentence.

【Criminal Facts】

1. Around 16:00 on December 20, 2018, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s restaurant business by force for about 50 minutes, including: (a) the victim C (here, 45 years of age) in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government; (b) the victim and his/her employee expressed, without any particular reason, the victim and his/her employee the desire to “Chewing, ging, drinking, drinking, and drinking,” and (c) the customer who had been on the said place, e.g., taking a trial fee and making him/her go to the customer.

2. The Defendant committed an assault, at the time, and at the place specified in the above Paragraph 1 (1) above, that was requested by the Seoul Geumcheon Police Station Emba, which received a report of 112 acts obstructing the performance of official duties and received a request for a sacrife and return home from the sacriff F, who took a bath to the above F, carried out a bath, and carried a f’s chest by hand, and carried a b

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the police officer's legitimate performance of official duties on 112 report processing.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused;

1. Statement of the police statement concerning F;

1. C’s statement;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to criminal records and investigation reports (Attachment of written judgments);

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

1. Of concurrent crimes, circumstances favorable to the reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act: the defendant recognized each of the crimes in this case and reflected therein.

D. Unfavorable circumstances: The Defendant committed the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties and obstruction of performance of official duties, despite the fact that the same criminal force is considerably high and is still under suspension of execution due to the crime of interference with business.