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

1. On February 16, 2016, at around 09:30, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s restaurant business by forcing customers who had entered the said restaurant to enter and depart from the restaurant, such as making the said restaurant workers take a bath without any reason as having entered the restaurant, making them drink the glass while drinking the restaurant, and putting back the dispute group in which the instant restaurant was accumulated, thereby obstructing the victim’s restaurant business by force for about one hour.

2. Around 10:45 on the same day, the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties and injured the Defendant committed assault, such as, at the above restaurant, the following: (a) 10:45 day of the same day, the Defendant sent to the said restaurant with a report of the fact that the customer was drunk and sent to the Defendant that the customer avoided the disturbance; and (b) the circumstances belonging to the D District of the Pakistan Police Station, which prevented the Defendant from participating in the disturbance, saying, “I shall open the door, spack the spacker, and spack the spacker,” and assaulted the Defendant: (c) 1) once a drinking

As a result, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties by police officers and prevention of crimes, etc., and at the same time, the victim E was put on the left-hand spons, etc. requiring approximately two weeks medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. C’s statement;

1. Investigation report (ctv analysis);

1. Statement of opinion;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense (the point of interference with business), Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with the performance of public duties) and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business) of the same 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. The Defendant, on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, committed an assault against a police officer who interfered with his/her business, such as destroying the equipment of the place of business and taking a bath, without any particular reason.

An act to challenge the legitimate execution of public authority should be subject to strict punishment.

(b).