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 August 1, 2018, the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties, in front of the restaurant “C” in the Dong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City apartment apartment building B, and in front of the 112-gu apartment building B, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of duties by a police officer on the handling of the reported case, by assaulting the 112 police officer on his/her own, who was solicited to return home from the slope E belonging to the D District Unit of the Do Police Station of the Daegu Dong-gu Police Station, Daegu, who called the site after receiving a 112 report on his/her business interference, with the solicitation of returning home from the slope E belonging to the D District Unit of the D District of the Dong-gu Police Station, which called into the site,

2. In the above time, place, F, and the place where the above restaurant business proprietor is located, the Defendant publicly insultingd the victims by referring to the victims E, the circumstances belonging to the said cafeteria, the victims G, the police officers of the said cafeteria, and the victims H of the said cafeteria who were called to the said place upon receiving the above report, and she was not subject to any punishment for the flasing of the flas, she died of the flasing of the flas, the flasing of the flas, and the flasing of the flas, since the flasing of the flas, and the flasing of the flas.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Each police statement protocol with respect to G and E;

1. A written statement;

1. Application of the respective Acts and subordinate statutes of the complaint filed by E, H and G;

1. Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties) and Article 311 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of each sentence 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. It is not good that the Defendant, on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended sentence, assaults a police officer in the course of performing official duties to interfere with the legitimate performance of official duties, and insults the police officer in front of many people.

However, the defendant was fully aware of the crime of this case.