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 November 4, 2015, from around 16:50 to around 17:05 of the same day, the Defendant: (a) obstructed the Defendant at the “E” restaurant operated by the Victim D (47 tax) Party D (E) located in the Innju City from around November 16:50 to around 17:05 of the same day: (b) caused the Defendant to have avoided disturbance for about 15 minutes, such as: (c) the Defendant was placed on the floor of the water reservoir on the table on the ground that he was unable to drink alcohol; (d) the Defendant was placed in the house without drinking alcohol on the ground that he did not drink; and (d) the Defendant was able to take a large voice for the victims and other customers

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

2. On November 4, 2015, the Defendant: (a) was arrested as a current criminal, such as interference with duties by a police box operator G, etc., who was dispatched after receiving a report from 112, at the place indicated in paragraph (1) of the same Article, the Defendant obstructed the performance of official duties; (b) was arrested by the police box operator G, etc. of the relevant police station, etc.; and (c) was transferred to the police box on the back of the patrol.

The Defendant: (a) avoided tobacco from the back seat of the patrol vehicle; (b) prevented the said G from smoking tobacco; and (c) spits or spits the said G with the upper body of a person who takes a lock and spits it twice in the face.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers in criminal investigations.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement by the prosecution and the police concerning G;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Photographs related to the case;

1. Application of the Act and subordinate statutes to a criminal report (Attachment of video CDs submitted by a victimized police officer G);

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, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the grounds for sentencing as follows);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on the Observation, etc. of Protection, etc. is that the defendant is attempting to commit a crime and is against himself/herself, and the victim of the crime of interference with business.