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.

1. On August 22, 2018, from around 11:30 to around 14:10, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s restaurant business by force over approximately 2 hours and 40 minutes, including the victim’s “E” restaurant operated by the victim D in Michuhol-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, and the next customer and the customer in the restaurant are in a breadic currency. The Defendant interfered with the victim’s restaurant business by force.

2. On August 22, 2018, the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties, within the above restaurant around 14:20 on August 22, 2018, on the grounds of the interference with the above duties, issued a 112 report and sent out from G to the F District of the Incheon Michuhol Police Station, which was called out after receiving a 112 report.

In order to hear the horses to the effect that “”, he saw and assaults G’s breath by spathing and destroying it.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the prevention, suppression and investigation of police officers' crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. Written statements of D;

1. A report on internal investigation and a report on each investigation (a report on the confirmation of cell phone images and CCTVs submitted by a police officer dispatched to the scene);

1. 112 Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes of the Table for Reporting and Handling;

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 former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the said Act (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes against a person who has committed a crime with heavier duties);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, including observation of protection and community service order;

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

(a) Class 1 (Interference with Business) Crimes (Interference with Determination of Type) [Determination of the Place of Recommendation] Basic Field / [Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment from 6 months to 1 year and 6 months (general sentencing factors) - Reduction element: