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

At around 00:22 on March 2, 2017, the Defendant was able to avoid disturbance for about 20 minutes, on the ground that the victim talks with another customer rather than drinking the Defendant, and that the victim talks with the other customer, the Defendant was able to avoid disturbance for about 20 minutes on the ground that “I am h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h, h h h h h h h h h h h, h h h h h h h h h h h h

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's door-line business by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as field photographs;

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (referring to the part favorable to the following reasons for sentencing)

1. The sentencing criteria [the scope of recommended punishment] set forth in Category 1 (Obstruction of Duties) and the mitigation area (one month to eight months) [the person who has been specially mitigated] the penalty not for the punishment (including a serious effort to recover damage);

2. The sentence shall be pronounced as ordered by taking comprehensive account of the following circumstances based on the sentencing criteria set forth in the above sentencing criteria:

The favorable circumstances: The fact that the injured party does not want to be punished by the defendant in agreement with the victim, confession, serious reflectivity, and victim.

(i) Unfavorable circumstances: The most serious criminal records related to violence, etc.