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

1. On November 2, 2018, from around 01:00 to 01:20 on the same day, the Defendant interfered with the business of the victim C’s bar business by force by avoiding disturbance, such as “D operated by the victim C in Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, without any reason, under the influence of alcohol. In addition, the Defendant interfered with the business of the victim’s bar business by force.

2. At around 01:30 on November 2, 2018, the Defendant of the obstruction of performance of official duties: (a) reported at the front of the “D”; (b) 112, and (c) sent to the site, the Seoul Central Cranc Police Station E box, which was called the Defendant to calculate the drinking value; and (d) the Defendant was able to write down the f, who was called the Defendant at the house, the Defendant f to the said F, who saw the f to write down the drinking value. The Defendant f of the Seoul Central Cranc Police Station E box, which was called the Defendant at the site. The Defendant f was hicked to the police box to write down the f, who was her to write down the f, and used the f’s chest at two times for drinking.”

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers regarding the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness G, F, and H;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. C’s statement;

1. Interim statement;

1. A criminal investigation report (CCTV verification), CD (CCTV image);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a criminal investigation report (to hear statements by police officers on the spot), a criminal investigation report (to re-verification of the content ofCCTV), and a criminal investigation report (to attachCCTV images);

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act in the suspension of execution is that the Defendant interfered with his duties by avoiding a disturbance in order to not pay the drinking value, and despite the continued perception of the police officer dispatched after receiving a report, the Defendant assaulted the police officer to commit such offense.

In addition, CCTV.