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

1. At around 23:30 on December 15, 2014, the Defendant interfered with the business of interfering with the business of the Defendant: (a) while drinking alcohol within “D Lestop” in the operation of the Victim C, he interfered with the Defendant’s operation of Lestop by force by avoiding disturbance over about 50 minutes, such as: (b) spiting three glass residues on the customers’ surface; (c) spiting spits on the floor; (d) spiting them into the floor; and (e) spiting them into the floor; and (e) spiting them on the floor; and (e) viewing the stop on the sto

2. On December 16, 2014, the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties: (a) committed assault against police officers on the ground that F, under the circumstances belonging to the permanent police station E zone of the permanent police station called up upon receiving the report from the above Lestop on the ground that F, who was under the control of the Defendant, would restrain the Defendant, thereby obstructing the police officers’ legitimate performance of duties regarding the handling of the reported case. (b) On December 16, 2014, the Defendant: (c) f, on one occasion, f, took a bridge part; (d) f, f, f, f, f, f, f, f, f, and f, f, f, on several occasions to the face of the F face;

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of C, F, and G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on investigation reporting;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of each fine for the crime;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is as follows: (a) the Defendant, by force, interfered with the duties of the restaurant operated by the victim C by force; (b) the unfavorable circumstances that the nature of the instant crime is not good by the use of violence to the police officers dispatched; (c) the Defendant confessions all the instant crime and repents it; (d) the Defendant agreed with the victim C about the crime of interference with business; (c) favorable circumstances such as the Defendant’s primary offender; and (d) other favorable circumstances such as the Defendant’s age, environment, and result of the instant crime