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

1. On March 30, 2014, around 04:30 on March 30, 2014, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s convenience store business by force by avoiding disturbance between about 20 minutes, such as smoking tobacco within the convenience store managed by the victim D, which is located in Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, and Seoul, taking a bath to see it, thrown away the objects displayed within the convenience store, and setting the free window at the convenience store.

2. On March 30, 2014, around 04:55, the Defendant, at the above convenience store, was subject to a check from the police officer F belonging to the Incheon Bupyeong Police Station E zone located in the Incheon Bupyeong Police Station, who was dispatched to the site after receiving the report of the foregoing D’s 112, and the Defendant, who said police officers, expressed desire several times to the said police officers as follows: “I am knee kel kel kel kel kel kel kel kel kel kel kel kel kel kel kel kel kel kel kel kne.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of 112 reports and on-site order affairs by the police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to D or F;

1. G statements;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion regarding the defendant under Article 62-2 of the Probation Criminal Act and the defense counsel asserted that the defendant had a state of mental disorder caused by mental illness at the time of stopping each of the crimes of this case. In light of all the circumstances, such as the background, means and methods of each of the crimes of this case, the defendant's behavior before and after the crime of this case, it is insufficient to view that the defendant committed the crime of this case under the state of lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions at