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

1. On August 18, 2015, at around 06:50, the Defendant interfered with the business of the victim, within the “E” entertainment drinking club operated by the victim D, the victim D, who was demanded to pay the drinking value from the victim, she was seated in the relevant carper, and she was sat down in the relevant carper, and she was sat down to the victim, she was sat down, she was sat down, she was sat down in five old days, six balls, and she was sat down, she wanted to die, she was she was sat down, she was she was sat down, and she was she was sat down to the victim’s main business by force, such as the victim’s 40 minutes of the disturbance, when she was sat down with the victim’s hand.

2. The Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties on the ground that the police officer, at the time and place specified in paragraph (1) of this Article, G circumstances belonging to the F District, the police officer, who was dispatched after being reported 112, and the police officer, voluntarily obstructed the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties on the part of the police officer with regard to the handling of reported duties, on the ground that Haskbbbbs, Hask Hask’s left part of the said G, and walk the Hask in several times,

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each statement made to D, I, G, and H;

1. Reporting on investigation (Arrest, etc. of Suspects), and application of statutes governing damaged photographs;

1. Articles 136 (1) and 314 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

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

1. Reasons for sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution is as follows: Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution: Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution of Official Duties (Scope of Recommendation) that there is no basic area (6 to 1 year and 4 months) [the scope of Recommendation] of the second crime (Interference with Business] [the scope of Recommendation] of the mitigated area (1 to 1 month), the mitigated area (1 to 8 months) [including special mitigation] of the mitigated area (including efforts to recover damage): The final sentencing scope due to the aggravation of punishment (including serious efforts to recover damage): Six months to 1 year8 months [Determination of Punishment] without any specific criminal history; it is against mistake; and the victim of interference with business