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 February 13, 2016, from around 19:30 on the same day to around 20:10 on the same day, the Defendant interfered with the Defendant’s operation of the restaurant by the victim G (the 49-year-old) who is the owner of the business at the place where he she gets late from the restaurant of “F” located in Asan-si E, and on the grounds that the ordered food was late. The Defendant interfered with the Defendant’s operation of the restaurant by force by avoiding disturbance, such as the misunderstanding on the table table, and putting the disturbance on the table table, and putting the 3 soldiers on the knick, etc.

2. The Defendant who interferes with the performance of official duties at the same place around 20:10 on the same day, was asked by I to ask questions about his personal information from a policeman belonging to the Hosan Police Station H District, who was called up after being reported 112 as the date on which the disturbance was set.

“In doing so with the left hand, the 112 police officer’s lawful performance of duties concerning the handling of the report was obstructed by assaulting the part of the above I’s left part by breaking the ebbbbbage of the said I, making the said I’s ebbbbb, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each statement made to J with regard to the police statement, each statement made to I by the police in the police statement;

1. Application of each of the Acts and subordinate statutes described in G and K's written statements;

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (the obstruction of business, the choice of imprisonment), and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of public duties and the choice 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. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (including the circumstances favorable to the following grounds for sentencing);

1. The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment for not less than one month but not more than seven years and not more than six months;

2. The scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines is limited to the crimes that interfere with the performance of official duties (a determination of type), the crimes that interfere with the performance of official duties (a interference with the performance of official duties) and the crimes that fall under the category 1 (a interference with the execution of official duties) (a interference with the execution of official duties) among the crimes that interfere with the performance of official duties [the scope of the recommended punishment] [the crimes that interfere with the performance of duties] and the crimes that interfere with the performance of duties (a interference with the execution of official duties) for not less than