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

1. On August 7, 2016, at around 15:00, the Defendant interfered with business, at the “E restaurant” operated by the victim D in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and at around 30 minutes, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s operation of the restaurant by force by force, such as: (a) the Defendant expressed a large voice that “I see, e.g., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h., h. to the customers; (b) h., h., h., h., h. to the outside; and (c) the victim

2. The Defendant had expressed the attitude that he would see the above G when she sees the horses that she was called from the police officer of the Gwangjin-gu Police Station F Zone G, who received a 112 report to the effect that she interfered with the business at the time, place, and operation of the above paragraph (1). The Defendant interfered with the police officer’s legitimate performance of official duties concerning the handling of 112 reports by assaulting the said G by assaulting him, such as having a large amount of flag’s flasing, she was flag, and she was flaging, and she was flaging.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Protocol of the police statement concerning G;

1. Written statements, the application of each Act or subordinate statute of investigation reporting;

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 (Consideration of the fact that it reflects the fact that the victim has agreed on the obstruction of business, the degree of violence to the victim police officer is relatively minor and the compensation for damage is deposited in a relatively small amount of 50,00