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

1. Around 02:00 on December 23, 2018, the Defendant: (a) expressed the victim’s desire at a “D” restaurant operated by the victim C in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government; and (b) expressed the victim’s refusal of drinking alcohol with the victim’s seated with the victim; (c) expressed the victim’s expressed the victim’s desire to “Chos, Chos,” and expressed the other customers in the surrounding area with the victim’s desire to “chos, flus, and flusium,” and expressed the victim’s voice to the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's main business by force.

2. The Defendant expressed the Defendant’s personal information to verify his identity at the time and place indicated in paragraph (1) at the Seoul Gangseo Police Station Edistrict, which was called out after having been reported 112 at the time and place of the performance of official performance of official duties. The Defendant expressed the Defendant’s desire to “the son of bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch, four bitch bitpher, pine, and so on.” The Defendant expressed the desire to “the ringer, bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch,” and attempted to keep the son’s clothes on one occasion due to drinking.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Application of the respective laws and regulations of C and G

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Circumstances unfavorable to the sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act: A crime that prevents the defendant from running a restaurant on the new wall hours and assaults the police officer dispatched after receiving a report is a crime, the responsibility for the crime is not against the law.

In 2012, the defendant was punished by a fine for obstruction of performance of official duties, etc., and committed a second offense, despite the fact that he had been punished eight times for the crime of violence, etc.

The favorable circumstances: