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

1. 업무방해, 폭행, 재물손괴 피고인은 2018. 11. 3. 00:03경부터 00:28경까지 평택시 B에 있는 피해자 C(여, 42세)이 근무하는 편의점에서, 술에 취해 별다른 이유 없이 “좋게 말할 때 담배 내 놔! 담배 준다고 했는데 왜 안 주냐 ”라고 큰 소리를 질러 손님들이 밖으로 나가도록 하고, 같은 날 00:25경 오른손에 들고 있던 라이터를 위 C에게 집어던지고, 같은 날 00:26경 피고인을 제지하여 밖으로 데리고 나가려는 경찰관들에게 저항하면서 피해자 D 소유인 시가 미상의 담배 홍보케이스를 양쪽 손으로 번갈아 잡아당겨 수리비 약 26,380원 상당이 들도록 손괴하였다.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the business of the victim C by force, assaulted the victim C, and damaged the property owned by the victim D.

2. On November 3, 2018, the Defendant used assaulting the F’s left side buckbucks one time to walk at the convenience store on November 3, 2018, following the report of 112 at the convenience store as stated in paragraph (1) and soliciting the Defendant to leave from the convenience store from F (29 years of age) of the patrol officer of the Pyeongtaek-gu Police Station Ecom box, who was called out.

At around 01:00 on November 3, 2018, the Defendant continued to assault F F’s chests with a bad hand while putting the Defendant “F’s chests anywhere, f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., and f., f., f., f., f., and f., f., f., f., f.,

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of duties by police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to F and C;

1. Written estimate (Order to deliver tobacco display place);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs extracted from CCTV at the scene of damage;

1. Relevant Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing performance of official duties), and Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act for the crime;