A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On August 14, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 03:10 on August 14, 2017, at the “D” restaurant operated by the victim C in Daegu Suwon-gu, without any justifiable reason; (b) took alcohol and went back to the said restaurant without any justifiable reason; and (c) took a bath to female customers; and (d) took a hand to female customers, they were able to fluenced with the will of customers, and fluencing them with a heavy distance, and fluencing them with a view to flusing their snow, and making them leave the place.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the victim's restaurant business by force.

2. On August 14, 2017, the Defendant who obstructed the performance of official duties was requested to return home after calculating the brupt from F in the circumstances belonging to the Daegu Suwon Police Station E District, where he was called out after receiving a report on “the brucing person under the influence of alcohol” in front of the restaurant entrance as indicated in the foregoing paragraph 1 around August 14, 2017.

“In doing a bath,” the F was assaulted by the following: (a) the F’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s fat at one time.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers on the handling of reported duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. An investigation report (to hear statements of a reporter and attach four copies of field photographs);

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs by capturing CCTV images;

1. Relevant Article 314 of the Criminal Act, Articles 314(1) and 136(1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment for a crime;

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 reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution shows that the Defendant’s assaulted to the police officer following the crime of interference with the instant business is weak to the Defendant’s awareness of compliance with the law, and it is necessary to punish the Defendant with strict punishment.

However, the defendant is the first offender of the same kind, and there is no criminal record exceeding the fine, and the defendant is the defendant.