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 December 21, 2016, at around 01:30, the Defendant: (a) demanded that the Victim C’s “D main points” located in Suwon-gu, Busan be placed one year prior to the victim; and (b) was rejected; (c) the Defendant: (a) demanded that the Victim C’s main points be placed in order to avoid disturbance for about 35 minutes; and (b) obstructed the Victim’s main business affairs by force by avoiding disturbance for about 35 minutes.

2. Around December 21, 2016, the Defendant: (a) committed assault, such as: (b) around December 21, 2016; (c) the F, who was assigned to the Busan Coast Guard Epis, to arrest the Defendant as a current offender with interference with the duties set forth in paragraph (1); (d) the said F, who took the Defendant’s bath; and (d) the Defendant’s hand f, who gets off his arms.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the arrest of flagrant offenders of the above F, who are police officials.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement with respect to C and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on site photographs;

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 (The following extenuating circumstances are considered in favor of the sentencing in mind):

1. The crime of this case with the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act is an act of assaulting a police officer to arrest a defendant as a current offender and obstructing the legitimate execution of duties concerning the arrest of a flagrant offender, etc. of the above police officer, and is disadvantageous to the nature of the crime.

However, the fact that the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case, the fact that the defendant agreed with the victim of the obstruction of business, the F who is the police officer wanting to take the defendant's wife against the defendant, and the defendant exceeded the fine.