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

1. On July 22, 2017, from around 23:40 to July 23, 2017, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s restaurant business by force, such as: (a) throwing away the beer of the customers who drink in front of the said restaurant without any reason while under the influence of alcohol at the E restaurant operated by the victim D in Jeju; (b) throwing away the beer of the customers who drink in front of the said restaurant; and (c) “singing off the sc and infing the scam,” and obstructing the victim’s restaurant business by force.

2. At around 00:20 on July 23, 2017, the Defendant: (a) was urged to return home from the slope G belonging to the F District of the Jeju Police Station of the Jeju Police Station called out after receiving a report from the Defendant to the effect that the Defendant would escape from the disturbance at the restaurant at the above E restaurant on July 23, 2017.

“In doing so, the chest part of the said G was pushed down by hand while taking a bath to “”.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. A written statement of each victim (D);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (to hear statements by police officers G phone call);

1. Relevant Article 314 of the Criminal Act, Articles 314 (1) and 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties), and the choice 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. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order is to recognize and reflect all of the crimes, and the fact that the defendant has agreed with the victim is favorable.

However, even though the defendant was already punished by a fine due to the obstruction of the performance of official duties in 2015, there is a high possibility of criticism because he again commits a crime of obstructing the performance of official duties.

In addition, this case, such as the degree of exercise of tangible force, age, sex, environment, circumstances after the crime, circumstances after the crime, family relationship, etc. of the defendant.