However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. The defendant who has obstructed the work and the defendant B are siblingsed.

From 03:00 on December 3, 2017 to 04:00 on the same day, the Defendant, within the “E” restaurant operated by the victim D, who permanently resides in C, expressed the bath to B, and talked with the large interest, thereby obstructing the victim’s disturbance in the operation of the restaurant.

2. At around 04:00 on December 3, 2017, B: (a) received a report from the above restaurant to “at least three customers,” and met with G’sless electricity from a slope G belonging to the FJ branch of the permanent police station, which called for a disturbance and demanded a policeman to return home; (b) and (c) the Defendant, in order for H to arrest the said G and H as the current offender of the interference with the performance of his official duties, committed assaulting the above G in front of B, thereby interfering with the arrest of the said G, and interfering with the arrest of the said H, and putting the arms of the said H, which sought to lock.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the arrest of a flagrant offender by a police officer in uniform.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect B of the police;

1. Each police statement made with respect to G and H;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense (the point of interference with business) and Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with the performance of public duties);

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

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

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. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The sentencing criteria do not apply because some of the crimes against which the sentencing criteria are applied are in a mutually competitive relationship.

2. The Defendant, who has been sentenced, prevented the police officer from arresting a flagrant offender upon receiving a report as well as obstructing his/her duties by keeping him/her in a restaurant. Such obstructing the execution of official duties is the police officer.