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

1. On December 27, 2014, the Defendant interfered with the business of the victim’s main business by force, such as: (a) the victim’s “E” point of the victim D (n, 53 years old)’s 1st underground floor in Bupyeong-gu Incheon Bupyeong-gu, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon; (b) the victim paid the drinking value to the Defendant who was under the influence of alcohol and returned to the house. However, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s main business by force, by force, caused the victim to avoid disturbance, such as diversing water on the table on the instant table, diversing the instant cup, e.g., spreading water on the instant table, and cutting off the cup, and let the customers who drink alcohol out.

2. The Defendant assaulted the said G at the same time and place of the obstruction of performance of official duties, such as: (a) the greging of the greging of the greg in connection with the drinking value by paying the drinking value from the police officer G belonging to the Samsan Police Station, which was dispatched to the site after having reported 112 of the 112 of the greging; (b) the greging of the greging of the said G; and (c) the greging of the greging of the greg of the said

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of duties by police officers on handling 112 reports by police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

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

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act [Scope of Recommendation] The reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the same Act is that in the case of concurrent crimes with crimes for which no sentencing guideline is set, which are concurrent crimes with the basic area (six months to one year and four months) (no special person) of the obstruction of performance of official duties, the lower limit is subject to the sentencing guidelines for the crimes for which the sentencing guidelines are set (the decision of sentence is made].