However, the above sentence shall be executed for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. On August 16, 2015, Defendants 22:32, who interfered with the Defendants’ duties were mast in the “Fmast area” operated by the victim E in Gwangju Northern-gu, Gwangju, and Defendant B went off the clothes to the calculation unit in the state of her being off as they were asked for sexual intercourse, and her “service good,” and she went back to the drinking room when she was asked from G, who is the victim’s seat, and went back to the drinking room. While she again and continuously demanded refund, Defendant A also Do her in combination with this, expressed a desire to “Chewing baby” to the victim who was in the calculation unit, and “I can close the door to the drinking room if we want to complete the fine,” and Defendant B returned to 30 minutes of the drinking room.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with each other to obstruct the operation of the victim's marina business by force.

2. Defendant A’s obstruction of performance of official duties: (a) around 23:00 on August 16, 2015, Defendant A received 112 a report to avoid disturbance from the Fmaz. “Fmaz.” and sent out to the police officers, such as I, who were arrested as a flagrant offender of the obstruction of official duties and called “I would have to arrest an offender in the act of committing an act of committing an act of committing an act of committing an act of committing an act of committing an act of committing an act of committing an act of violence,” and (b) I would like to hear the phrase “I would not have “I would have received the money. I would not have to arrest an offender in the act of committing an act of committing an act of violence.”

As a result, the defendant is justified in mobilization of report 112 and restraint of crime.