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

1. From around 00:30 on September 28, 2015 to around 01:10, the Defendant: (a) 30 minutes of the 20th century, i.e., the victim D (the age of 53) on the fourth floor of the Seogu Seo-gu Daejeon, Seogu, Daejeon, took sobry in the Ebrying male escape room, and, without any justifiable reason, obstructed the victim’s sobrying work by avoiding disturbance by force.

2. At around 01:10 on September 28, 2015, the Defendant, who found the place in the soup room for 10 customers, openly insultd the victim by referring him to G, who was a policeman belonging to the Daejeon Police Station F District Unit of the Daejeon Police Station, who was called up with a report to avoid disturbance, such as Paragraph 1, to the 10 customers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (Interference with Business, Selection of Imprisonment) and Article 311 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts;

1. Of concurrent crimes, Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with the punishment stipulated in the decision on the crime of interference with business with heavier punishment within the scope of the sum of the long-term punishments of each crime on the market) of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act ( considered as the following favorable circumstances):

1. The reasons for the sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc. [the scope of recommendations] interference with the business of the first type (Interference with the business) (one to eight months) [Special Mitigation] of the mitigation area (referring to adjustment of recommendations] of the punishment, and the sentencing guidelines are concurrent with the offense of insult in the holding that the sentencing guidelines are not set. Therefore, only the minimum limit of the recommended punishment is applied. [the decision of sentence] unfavorable circumstances: the defendant has a record of being punished by a fine for the same kind of crime, and the damaged police officer has a record of being punished by the