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

"2014 Highest 836"

1. On September 26, 2014, from around 23:00 to 00:05 on the following day, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s restaurant operation duties by force by assaulting the victim who was under the influence of alcohol from “E” of the victim D’s operation in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, with the breabing of the table where other customers are located. The Defendant obstructed the victim’s restaurant operation duties by force by force.

2. Around 00:05 on September 27, 2014, the Defendant assaulted the Defendant for obstruction of performance of official duties by taking advantage of the following reasons: (a) on the ground that he was unable to interfere with the Defendant’s business by a slope G belonging to the F Zone G of the Seoul Gangnam Police Station, which was dispatched to the scene after receiving a report of 112 at the said place; and (b) on the ground that he prevented the Defendant from interfering with the Defendant’s business, the Defendant assaulted the Defendant by taking the Defendant’s face one time as a hand,

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the above police G and H's 112 reporting processing.

On November 15, 2014, 2014, the Defendant “2015 Highest 445” asked the Defendant, “Irrely,” to the Defendant, “Irrest the second floor of the Iral Building in Nam-gu, Gyeonggi-do, for the second floor of the Iral Province, that the customer was frighted without calculating the drinking value, after receiving K’s 112 report to the effect that the customer was frighted, the police box belonging to the Namyang Police Station, and the police officer assigned to the Defendant, “Irreh to pay to the Defendant the fee of KRW 150,000.”

E. In low interest, the Plaintiff expressed his/her desire to “Chewing”, and expressed his/her face one time with a bad hand, and expressed his/her desire to “incriminate and Chewing” to the horse funeral M, which was next to it, and threatened him/her as if he/she were to do so.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the police M and N's crime prevention.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of each police protocol protocol to D, G, H, M, and N

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) point of interference with business: Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act;

B. Each point of obstruction of performance of official duties: the Criminal Act.