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

1. On May 11, 2014, from around 02:20 to 02:50 the same day, the Defendant obstructed the Defendant: (a) expressed a disturbance from Dhop, which is operated by the victim C, to customers seated in Dhop B, and caused them to go away from the place.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the victim's bar business by force.

2. When the Defendant received a demand to return home, because he had paid a drinking value from a slope F to the Masa police box affiliated with the Masa police station, which was dispatched after having received a report at the same time and place as mentioned in the above paragraph 1, the Defendant committed assault, such as “I amba, I amba, I ambath, I ambath, I ambath, I ambath, I ambath, I ambath, I ambath, I ambath, I ambaths.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the maintenance of police officers' order.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The statement of each police officer made to F and G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (to hear statements by a victim's telephone);

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) and 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. Suspension of execution under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (including the fact that the defendant recognizes and reflects the crime, and that there has been an agreement with the victim interfering with business);

1. Social service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;