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 August 3, 2020, the Defendant: (a) under the influence of alcohol from the “D” operated by the Victim C located in Young-gu, Young-gu, Young-si; (b) the Defendant, under the influence of alcohol from the “D” operated by the Victim C; (c) the Defendant, on the sole ground that the private penting is not well-grounded in the site of the “sports soil” ticket; (d) the Defendant, who heard from the victim, the phrase “I interfere with the business, but again, I will go back to the next convenience store; and (d) the victim followed the victim, who returned to the convenience store.

Man Dok Dok Dok Dok Dok Dok Dok Dok Dok Dok Dok

Doz. Doz. to prevent the funeral of a dog;

Chewing typackers

"To avoid disturbance, such as taking a bath, it interfered with the victim's convenience store business by force over about 30 minutes."

2. On August 3, 2020, at around 19:50 on August 3, 2020, the Defendant: (a) heard the words “to interfere with the convenience store business and return home”; (b)” from the slope F belonging to the Young-gu Police Station Ear of the Yeongdeungpo-gu Police Station, Yeongdeungpo-dong Police Station called “to interfere with the convenience store business; and (c) he expressed the above police officer the desire to read “this she will also go to go to her own; and (d) she puts up two times to go to her.”

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

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

1. Application of CCTV image CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes to C’s written statements;

1. Relevant Article 136 of the Criminal Act, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties), Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing duties) and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime;

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

1. The Defendant, on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, was sentenced to a fine on January 2, 2019, and again committed each of the instant crimes even after having been sentenced to a crime of interference with business affairs.

A victim of a crime interfering with business shall be punished by the defendant.

However, the defendant recognizes each of the crimes of this case as a substitute and reflects it.