However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. On May 24, 2017, from around 23:30 to around 01:10 the following day, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s drinking business by force by forcing other customers, who were in the said drinking house, to take a large amount of the disturbance, such as drinking at the D drinking house in the operation of the victim C in the fourth floor of the building in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Nam-gu, Incheon, without any justifiable reason, to leave the said place, by having other customers who were in the said drinking house leave the said place.

2. The defendant interfering with the performance of official duties shall be the date and place specified in paragraph (1) in which three male customers are fighting.

“A police officer F (24 tax) belonging to the Incheon Southern Police Station E District Group, who was called up upon the report of 112, was able to return home after calculating the drinking value to the Defendant, and was assaulted by the police officer, such as a police officer’s walking three times on the chest part of the said police officer’s chest, continuing to walk one time on the part of the police officer.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Each written statement of C and G (victim and witness);

1. 112 Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a statement of report;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business), Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with the performance of public duties) and the choice of imprisonment for each crime;

1. The provision of the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the same Act, which provides for aggravated concurrent crimes (aggravating concurrent crimes with the punishment stipulated for a crime of obstructing the execution of heavier official duties);

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

1. Scope of the recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) Class 1 (Interference with Business) (Interference with Determination of Type) and Category 1 (Interference with Business) (Interference with Special Sentencing) (person with Special Sentencing) - The elements for mitigation: The scope of mitigation [including a serious effort to recover damage] the area of mitigation [the scope of recommendation] the area of mitigation [the scope of recommendation] imprisonment from one month to eight months [the person with general sentencing] - The factors of mitigation: the serious reflect [the suspension of execution].