업무방해등
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Punishment of the crime
1. On April 25, 2015, the Defendant committed the crime, from around 15:00 to 14:30 on April 25, 2015, 2015, committed the disturbance, saying, “C” restaurant located in the wife population B, which is drunk between the Defendant and 14:30 on the same day, that two employees, such as the victim D, such as the victim, are drunk, saying, “on-line is charged with a cellphone, why it is not promptly charged,” and caused the customers who provided meals to leave the scene.
Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's restaurant business by force.
2. The crime committed on April 30, 2015;
A. On April 30, 2015, the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties: (a) on the front side of the Korean bank located in 95-1 Dong Dong-dong Dong-dong, Young-si on April 30, 2015, the Defendant: (b) obstructed the progress of the patrol by putting the Defendant on the front side of the patrol while neglecting the police officer’s solicitation of returning to the police officer, including, but not limited to, the police officers belonging to the Dong-dong Police Station E-dong, Dong-dong, Police Station E-dong, and Police Officers belonging to the Dong-dong Police Station E-dong, who was called up by the Defendant on the back of the patrol; (c) preventing the Defendant from getting off the said F from getting off from the patrol by hand; and (d) interfered with the progress of the patrol by placing the Defendant on the front side of the patrol at the back of the patrol.
As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of official duties of police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported duties.
B. From 07:50 on the same day to 08:20 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) had a disturbance, such as avoiding the demand of the victim to leave the restaurant, by holding the victim H, who is located in the wife G, at the entrance of the “I” restaurant, without any justifiable reason, and refusing to do so; and (b) had the victim h enter the restaurant.
Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's restaurant business by force.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement by the defendant in court;
1.With respect to F and H, respectively.