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

1. On April 11, 2019, at around 20:30, the Defendant interfered with the business of the victim’s main shop business by force for about 15 minutes, including, without any reason, the victim’s desire to engage in drinking alcohol at the “D” main shop operated by the victim C in Yangcheon-gu Seoul, Seoul, and the victim, sitting on the side table, without any reason, who gets involved in drinking. The Defendant interfered with the business of the victim’s main shop business by force for about 15 minutes.

2. 공무집행방해 피고인은 제1항 기재와 같은 일시 및 장소에서, ‘술 취한 손님이 다른 손님들에게 시비를 걸고 안 나가고 있다’는 내용의 112신고를 받고 현장에 출동한 서울양천경찰서 E지구대 소속 경위 F 등이 피고인에게 귀가를 권유하며 팔을 잡아 부축하자, 갑자기 ‘야 이 씹할 놈아, 내가 뭘 잘못했냐’라고 말하며 손바닥으로 F의 우측 얼굴을 1회 때려 폭행하였다.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of 112 reported cases by police officials.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A written statement of C, G, and F;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

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

1. On the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, comprehensive consideration was given to the following factors: (a) the background and content of each of the instant crimes; (b) the degree of damage; (c) the victim of the crime of interference with business; (d) the criminal records of the Defendant, including the same crime; and (e) the criminal records of the Defendant, including the Defendant’s age, career, health status