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. On April 6, 2016, at a “D” restaurant operated by the victim C in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-gu, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s business affairs by force by avoiding disturbance for about 150 minutes, including: (a) placing the victim’s desire to put the victim in the restaurant without any reason; and (b) raising the victim’s vision to unspecified customers.

2. The Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties at around 11:30 on the same day as in the preceding paragraph, and obstructed the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties concerning the handling of report 112, including those who are demanded to return home from the Ulsan Southern Police Station, and those who are demanded to return home from F by the police officer F of the E, by hand, and those who are demanded from F of the police officer belonging to the E, by hand, to take back the F’s bridge back to the 112 police officer.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. C’s statement;

1. Application of CCTV Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business) and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment with prison labor (the consideration that the degree of interference with duties and violence against police officers is not minor);

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. The grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) (the agreement with the victim of the obstruction of duties, the fact that his mistake appears to be repented, and favorable circumstances that have no record of being sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment) of the Criminal Act / [the scope of recommended punishment] the violation of Article 62 (1) (the scope of recommended punishment) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution of Duties / [the scope of recommended punishment] the violation of Article 62 (1) (the scope of recommended punishment] of the Act on the Suspension of Duties (the special sentencing person for six months to one year)] of the basic area (the violation of the Act on the Suspension of Duties) / [the scope of recommended punishment] the mitigated area (one month to eight months) [including efforts to recover damage] of the mitigated area of punishment (including special mitigation person] [the final sentencing scope due to the aggravation of multiple crimes: June to August 8: