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

1. On June 29, 2017, at the main point of “E” operated by the victim D in Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon on June 29, 2017, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s main business by force by avoiding disturbance for about one hour and 30 minutes, such as “humping, 119, humping” to police officers and firemen dispatched to the site of the scene of the shock shock.

2. On June 30, 2017, at around 00:05, the Defendant obstructed the performance of official duties by the fire officer F belonging to the Seobu fire station 119 first-aid unit, called the Defendant’s wall to check the Defendant’s identity by the fire officer F of the 119 first-aid fire station, who was called out after receiving a report at the above place of 00:05, and took a cell phone to check the Defendant’s identity, and obstructed the Defendant’s legitimate performance of duties concerning the fire officer’s first-aid activities in line with the left part of the said F.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each statement of D and F;

1. Reporting on the arrest of the case;

1. A report on investigation;

1. A report on investigation (an investigation conducted against the other party of a harvested person);

1. An investigation report (a list of relevant witnesses shall be attached);

1. Investigation report (to hear statements from victim D phone calls and report);

1. A criminal investigation report (on-site photographing motion pictures and CDs at the time of the incident);

1. Application of statutes on field photographs;

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (the obstruction of business, the choice of imprisonment), and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of public duties and the choice of imprisonment);

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the Suspension of Execution (Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act) provides that a criminal defendant has the same criminal records in favor of the criminal defendant, such as the fact that the criminal defendant is under the time of committing the instant crime, the fact that the criminal defendant appears to have committed the instant crime by force, the fact that both the victim of the obstruction of business and the damaged fire officer are taking the shot for the victim, and that the defendant has no criminal records exceeding the fine, in favor of the