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

At around 14:50 on October 14, 2019, the Defendant, who operated a “C cafeteria” in the vicinity of Jung-Eup, Seo-Eup, having confirmed that he was placed in Mongolia at the restaurant” from the head of the Dong-Eup, who was conducting on-site inspections, such as the establishment of a short wind railing order and the prevention of visitors’ acts, etc., the Defendant: (a) was called “to put in Mongolia a restaurant; (b) was called the “to put in Mongolia; (c) was called the building owner; and (d) followed the call, “I do not have a door-to-door”; and (d) followed the Defendant’s attempt to resist the phone.”

The defendant found E and returned to the vicinity of B, and found E, which divided the dialogue between F, G, H, and illegal tent installation measures in the vicinity of the Square, and described E as “drawing off,” while taking a bath to E, while getting on the top of the vehicle to get off, called E and shut off the door of E and the end of the vehicle to get off, while going off to the front of the vehicle to get off, and putting E into the outside of the vehicle. In order for E to get out of the vehicle, they assaulted E, such as: (a) when the vehicle door of E is closed in the front door of the vehicle to get out of the vehicle; and (b) when the vehicle door of E faces a defect that the latter intends to get out of the vehicle, then, they assault E, i.e., if the front side of the vehicle door of E, facing the front side of the vehicle door.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the maintenance of good order and the crackdown on illegal acts of public officials in regular and audio viewing.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police statement of E and H;

1. Relevant photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigative reports (to examine whether a person for reference H telephone conversations, F telephone conversations at the scene, degree of damage, E was in the course of performing his/her duties, and to examine the specific tangible power exercise of the suspect);

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 136 of the Election of Imprisonment;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act is that the Defendant has been punished by a fine for a violation of the Food Sanitation Act, which committed restaurant business without reporting in B short wind season from 2015 to 2018.