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

1. At around 19:00 on June 27, 2015, the Defendant interfered with his duties: (a) around 19:00, the Defendant sent tobacco to the “E” restaurant operated by the victim on the first floor of the C Building; (b) reported the appearance of the victim from G, an employee of the said restaurant; and (c) on the front that the above 10 customers who were in the said restaurant were viewed to have been in the above cafeteria, the Defendant: (a) expressed a large voice, “I will see that I will see me, I will see that I will see, “I will see, I will see, I will see, I will see, and walk I will see, I would like to get a simple chair; and (b) as I would like to get me to get me to me to me by a sofch, I would like to see that I would have been unable to get the victim to move out of the above cafeteria.”

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the victim's restaurant business by force.

2. At around 19:40 on June 27, 2015, the Defendant: (a) reported at the restaurant as indicated in paragraph (1) of this Article, that “The Defendant: (b) arrested the Defendant’s Defendant’s daily character F, who assaulted the said restaurant customer, as a flagrant offender; and (c) pushed the Defendant’s chest part of the victim J’s chest to the victim J; (d) reported that “The Defendant was assaulted by her son and her employee, who tried to her to her to her to her face; and (e) her to her f, who she called the said restaurant customer.”

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the police officer's 112 report processing and legitimate execution of duties concerning the arrest of flagrant offenders, and at the same time, the Defendant inflicted upon the victim J and L, who need treatment for about two weeks respectively.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. D, G, J, L, I, M, and K.