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

1. Around 00:00 on January 14, 2015, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s bar business by force by having the victim’s “Eju shop” operated by the victim D, who requested to give alcohol to the victim, but the victim said that he would return to the victim without drinking. B. The Defendant expressed the victim’s desire to “I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am.

2. At around 01:57 on January 14, 2015, the Defendant engaged in obstruction of performance of official duties: (a) arrested as a flagrant offender by the police officer assigned to the G District in the Namyang Police Station G District and the police officer I of the Namyang Police Station G District, who was called upon the said D upon receiving the said D’s report; and (b) went to the said police officer I as “spaws” during the patrol zone; and (c) expressed the said police officer I’s desire to “spaws” at one time; and (d) after having arrived at the G District, the Defendant assaulted the I’s chest with two descendants, such as taking one’s hair.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the arrest of a flagrant offender by a police officer.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police officer to I;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the draft D;

1. Articles 314(1) and 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the points of interference with business), the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment (the punishment shall be chosen, taking into account the following: (a) the record of being notified of a summary order of KRW 1.5 million as a result of the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties in 2004; (b) the fact that there was a record of being notified of a fine of KRW 1.5 million as a result of the crime of insult against police officers in 2009; and (c) the fact that damage recovery to victim D was not done at all

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 (No record of punishment exceeding a fine and the circumstances, details, results, etc. of the instant crime);

1. Order of community service;