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.

around 08:14, February 12, 2018, the Defendant found the Defendant at the police box of the police station of the police station of the police station in Gangwon-do, Gangwon-gun, who was issued a summary order on the charge of the violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, and requested the above E to leave from the police box affiliated with the police box where he was in charge of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the Defendant, and the Defendant stated that the Defendant “I wanted to “I am, scam, scam, scam ?, scam, scam,” and carried the chest part of the above E at one time, and pushed the breast part of the chest part of the above E, scam, the head of which was sealed once.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning E police boxes, who are police officers.

The Defendant, on April 29, 2018, 2018, 222, hereinafter the Defendant, at the H restaurant operated by the victim G in Gangwon-gu, Gangwon-do, G in the G of Gangwon-do on April 29, 2018, hereinafter the Defendant, while carrying out a serious bath, such as “nick,” and then drinking to the victim.

Along to approximately 20 minutes of phono, such as "a voice and sound, it interfered with the operation of the cafeteria of the victim."

Summary of Evidence

"2018 Highest 63"

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Investigation report (verification of images taken by a police officer in a mobile phone by the police box), photographs of 2018, 222);

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A written statement of the G victim;

1. Interference with any business operation report;

1. In light of the statement made by the victim G investigation agency that the Defendant was interfered with restaurant business by bringing about about 20 minutes of his/her behavior, such as: (a) an investigation report (victim’s telephone report) (in relation to the crime of interference with the business, the Defendant expressed to the effect that he/she was obscing at the time, and did not interfere with the operation of the restaurant; (b) however, the Defendant, who was sent by the manpower office to supplement human resources at the construction site, demanded the restaurant to provide the cafeteria, and provided the said alcohol, and want to receive money after offering the said alcohol, and enhancing the speech and talk; and (c) he/she was interfered with the restaurant business.