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

(e).

1. On September 4, 2017, at the D convenience store located in Pyeongtaek-si C on September 4, 2017, the Defendant: (a) caused a long time to calculate the Defendant’s goods, namely, “I will die on the road, d. h. h. h. h. h. h. h. h. to die on the road; and (b) caused the Defendant to repeat the act of putting the Defendant into the scam and enter the scam to the scam.; and (c) threatened the Defendant by putting the bescam to the scam.

2. The Defendant, who interfered with the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Refluence, etc.) and the duties thereof, committed the crime of this case No. 50 years of age (or 50 years of age) against the Defendant, on the ground that he reported to the police the criminal facts of this case No. 1, and at the convenience store as set forth in paragraph 1 around September 5, 2017, around 00:30 on September 5, 2017, he/she was suffering from the Defendant’s appearance as he/she was suffering from the Defendant. The

I do not agree.

In addition, it was difficult to avoid disturbance over about 13 minutes, such as "I will continue to keep the ice cream," and "I will keep the victim cream."

As a result, the defendant threatened the victim with the purpose of retaliation against the provision of investigation proviso, such as investigation or trial of his criminal case, accusation, accusation, etc., statement, testimony or submission of data, and interfered with the convenience store business of the victim by force.

3. On September 5, 2017, the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties, even if he/she was investigated by the G police box located in Pyeongtaek-si F on September 5, 2017 by committing the crime described in paragraph 2 at the above police box, and was under investigation by the above police box, he/she would be a compromise to H ( South and 39 years old) even if he/she was allowed a family member to escape the insurance proceeds.

H Whether he was married or not.

It is why why I would like to go, Chewing guea, grow up.

The net width coming from the inside of the police was threatened to "after," thereby hindering police officers from performing their legitimate duties in relation to criminal investigation affairs.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with H;

1. Each E statement;