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

1. On April 13, 2019, at around 17:20, the Defendant interfered with business, in the “D” operated by the Victim C in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on April 13, 2019, on the ground that the boiler was purchased on the same day and the victim did not interfere with safety inspections daily, and on the ground that he was employed by the said Et employees, the Defendant expressed the victim the victim “Igam in the night-math and going to do so,” and “Ig off any dog that does not fright anywhere in the night-math,” and the Defendant expressed a large desire to take care of the victim, and even if the victim requested to go out of the Et because of the expiration of the business hours, the Defendant prevented the employees from sustaining a disturbance for about 20 minutes, so that he could not end their business.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's marina operation and the conclusion of the work by force.

2. In the date, time, and place mentioned in Paragraph (1) of the same Article, the Defendant: (a) expressed a desire to her to her to return home from F of the police box belonging to the Seoul Gangseo-gu Police Station E (Seoul) Police Station Escoping that “I will her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to scop

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers in relation to the 112 Report Handling.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement concerning G and F;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing mobile phone images CDs;

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (Interference with Business, Selection of Imprisonment), and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstruction of performance of official duties and the choice of imprisonment);

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;

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act is deemed to obstruct duties and obstruct police officers' performance of official duties, and the defendant has been punished for the obstruction of performance of official duties.