1. On October 29, 2017, around 10:45, the Defendant interfering with his/her business: “E” restaurant operated by the victim D located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on the ground that the amount of food is double payment; B; “Ising the internal alcohol;”

For about 15 minutes, such as police flusty, Crop year, h, arb, and scoping, scoping, scoping, and scoping, scoping, thereby obstructing the victim’s operation of the restaurant by force.

2. On October 29, 2017, the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties: (a) at the above place; (b) at the police box of the Seoul East-gu Police StationF box, who was dispatched after receiving a report 112, prevented the Defendant from committing the above-mentioned Defendant’s act; and (c) Habk’s Habk, who was working in the police box of the Seoul East-gu Police Station, Seoul, Seoul, from participating in the performance of official duties

“The left hand,” refers to “The face of the horse G at one time, and the Defendant was assaulted by the police officer who arrested the Defendant in the act of committing an act of committing an offense on the part of the Defendant on the part of the Defendant, on one occasion, by walking the hbucks.”

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. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statements made to I, G and H;

1. Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense; Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act;

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

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

1. The sentencing period under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38(1)2 and Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes has several records of punishment due to the defendant's obstruction of performance of official duties or interference with business affairs, the victim D does not want the punishment of the defendant, the fact that the victim D deposited KRW 200,00 with G, who is the police officer victimized, as the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is committed the crime, deposited KRW 20,00,00, in consideration of the defendant's age, sex, behavior, intelligence and environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the