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

1. On April 4, 2015, at around 00:00, the Defendant interfered with the business of the victim’s restaurant business by force by forcing the employees to leave the 40 minutes of the disturbance, and by forcing them to interfere with the business of the victim’s restaurant by force, such as forcing the employees to question the whereabouts of the wall-to-be, which the Defendant lost, and getting off the wall-to-be from the wall-to-be, putting him/her off, putting him/her off, putting him/her off, putting him/her out, and she takes a large amount of bath.

2. 공무집행방해, 상해 피고인은 2015. 4. 4. 00:40경 제1항 기재 장소에서 위와 같이 소란을 피우던 중 112 신고를 받고 출동한 충남당진경찰서 G지구대 소속 순경인 피해자 D(26세)로부터 제지당하자 화가 나 “야, 어린 놈의 새꺄! 너 이루와! 죽었어”라고 욕설하면서 주먹으로 피해자의 얼굴을 1회 때렸다.

As a result, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the suppression and investigation of the victim, and at the same time, the victim suffered an injury to sphere in need of treatment for about 14 days.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of F and D;

1. Damage photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to an investigation report (Attachment of a medical certificate for injury);

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts, Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the criminal facts;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

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. Social service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. Determination as to the defendant's assertion under Article 32 (1) 3 and Article 25 (3) 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuits for Application for Compensation Orders (the scope of damage to the applicant for compensation order is not clear and it is not reasonable to issue a compensation order)

1. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion is with interference with business.