A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

1. On August 28, 2014, around 23:30 on August 28, 2014, the Defendant was unable to avoid disturbance for about 20 minutes, such as: (a) the victim D in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City was working at the victim D without any justifiable reason before the E convenience store; (b) taking care of outside and outside of the convenience store; and (c) taking care of a large amount of drinking alcohol and alcohol that the customer was drinking; and (d) the Defendant was able to avoid disturbance for 20 minutes.

The Defendant interfered with the victim’s convenience store business by force as above.

2. At around 23:45 of the foregoing day, the Defendant was asked by the police officer of the Seoul Mine-gu Police Station F District G and the police officer of the Seoul Mine-gu Police Station, who was called “Isson’s seated and Hasson’s seated.” The Defendant expressed that “Isson shall not be frighted,” and the above G expressed that “Isson may easily die. Isson can easily die, so I would like to go against the said G, and used the said H’s buckbucks twice in walking.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers in regard to 112 reports.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each statement of D, G and H;

1. Application of statutes on field photographs;

1. Article 314 (1) and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

1. A favorable circumstance is that the defendant's reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act are against the defendant, and that there is an agreement with the victim of obstruction of business.

However, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine three times as a crime of obstruction of performance of official duties and one year of suspension of execution on November 2, 2012. On January 20, 2014, even though he had the record of being sentenced to a summary order of KRW 700,000 as a result of the crime of obstruction of business, the Defendant repeats the same crime at the same time. In addition, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances of crimes, and crimes.