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.

1. On July 1, 2018, the Defendant: (a) around 20:45 on July 1, 2018, entered the victim C in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government “D” operated by the victim C; and (b) requested the victim to get a taxi under the influence of alcohol; and (c) the victim requested the victim to get a taxi.

For the reason that the phrase “I” is flick, Woman, bad years, and matches.

“Before doing a bath with the meaning, etc., customers were unable to enter the said store for about 30 minutes by placing various articles installed in the said store on the floor, etc.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the business of burial of the victim by force.

2. 공무집행 방해 피고인은 같은 날 21:10 경 위 ‘D’ 내에서, 전항과 같은 소란행위 신고를 받고 현장에 출동한 서울 도봉 경찰서 E 지구대 소속 경장 F가 술에 취하여 소란 중인 피고인에게 귀가를 권유하자 갑자기 욕설을 하면서 위 경찰관의 왼쪽 무릎 부위를 발로 1회 찼다.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning 112 reporting processing duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement with respect to C and F;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (limited to shooting images and CCTV images at the scene of occurrence);

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business), Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with the performance of public duties) and the selection of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime;

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. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is that the Defendant has been punished by a fine on several occasions.

In the police station, the act of disturbance, such as verbal abuse, and Handphones and shoes, continued.

The defendant's act does not fit merely because the defendant was under the influence of alcohol.

However, the defendant is in depth against the defendant when committing the crime of this case.

. The victims.