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

1. On September 20, 2017, from around 18:40 to 18:55 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) obstructed the victim’s main business by force by avoiding disturbance, such as having the victim talked with his/her own will; and (b) having the victim talked with his/her own will; and (c) having the victim intending to talk with his/her will; and (d) having the victim expressed his/her desire to the victim; and (d) having the victim talked with his/her hand; and (e) having the victim talked with his/her hand, making it impossible for customers to enter the said main place; and (e) obstructing the victim’s main business by force.

2. The Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties on September 20, 2017, when he was arrested as a current offender, such as interference with duties, by a policeman F belonging to the police station E division of the police station, who was called out after receiving a report at the above D station around 112 on September 20, 2017, the Defendant pushed the chest part of the policeman F on one hand.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the arrest of a flagrant offender by a police officer.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement with respect to C and F;

1. G statements;

1. Application of investigation reports and investigation reports (including investigation of, and attachment to, CCTV at the scene where the situation was recorded, CDs and CCTV photographs);

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business), Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with the performance of public duties) and the choice of imprisonment for each 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. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. Application of the sentencing criteria;

(a) A person who interferes with business affairs [the scope of a recommended punishment] and who does not constitute a punishment for a reduced area (one month to eight months) (a person who is specially mitigated).

B. Violation of interference with the performance of official duties / [Scope of a recommended punishment / [Interference with the performance of official duties / [Interference with the performance of official duties / Forced)] mitigated area (one month to eight months] mitigated area (person with special mitigation]

(c) The scope of final sentence due to the aggravation of multiple offenses: one month to one year of imprisonment; and

2. The defendant who has rendered a ruling of sentence shall commit violence under the influence of alcohol;