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 June 10, 2017, at around 20:00, the Defendant presented a national merchandise coupon to purchase goods at the E Eart, which is managed by the victim D located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, as well as a national merchandise coupon to purchase goods at the Eart calculation unit, and is not calculated as that merchandise coupon.

The defectiveness also returned to the Mart shop, and the "Is the why we will not know the calculation of the Egypt."

D. C. 10 minutes of 10 minutes of 10 minutes of c.m. b. b. “W. L. L. L.W. b. L. L.W. L. L.W. 207

Comprehensively taking into account the above evidence, the above evidence stated in the facts charged so that customers in the above Mat will get out of the court.

“The result of the commission was found”

It is insufficient to view it, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

In addition, this part does not infringe the defendant's right of defense by neglecting the facts charged, and thus, it is recognized by revising the facts charged as above.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the management work of the damaged person by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statements by witnesses D and F in this Court;

1. Determination as to the assertion of CCTV CDs and defense counsel

1. The summary of the argument was set at the large sound at the time by the defendant, but it is difficult to regard it as a power related to the obstruction of duty or there was no intention to obstruct duty.

2. Determination

A. The term "power of force" in the crime of obstruction of business refers to any force that may cause suppression and confusion with a free will of a person, and is not tangible or intangible, and includes not only assault and intimidation, but also pressure by social, economic, political status and royalty. It does not require actual suppression of a victim's free will by force (Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8447 Decided May 27, 2005). The crime of obstruction of business does not require actual suppression of a victim's free will (Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8447 Decided May 27, 2005). It is sufficient that the result of interference with business should not actually occur, but there is a risk of causing interference with business (Supreme Court Decision 204Do847 Decided April 1992).