A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

1. On August 22, 2014, at around 22:00, the Defendant: (a) 4-5 customers, who had drinking alcohol with the victim D in Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu “Earwon” administered by the victim D; (b) 30 minutes of the Victim D, who had drinking alcohol, were frightened with the victim 4-5 customers who had drinking alcohol; and (c) dumped with the victim’s hump with the large interest, such as “Ig singice, humfing, humfing, as soon as possible”; and (d) obstructed the victim’s cump business by force.

2. At around 21:00 on September 201, 201, the Defendant: (a) found the victim D under the influence of alcohol in the E flag pool managed by the victim D; and (b) expressed the victim’s desire to the customer at the same time with the larger interest of “attention ......”; (c) fatf and Sinbbbb, which resisted the batf and Sinbb, and interfered with the victim’s flag operation by force by avoiding a small amount of disturbance.

3. On September 10, 2014, at around 18:00, the Defendant: (a) discovered a breath in the E flag pool managed by the Victim D; (b) discovered a breath, snife, snife, and snife, and let 10 customers who were in the source of the flag move out of the flag, and obstructed the victim’s press operation by force by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each protocol concerning the examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Protocol concerning the examination of each police suspect against the defendant or F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the protocol of prosecutorial statement concerning D;

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act selecting a penalty;

1. The reason for sentencing Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Code aggravated concurrent crimes has the same criminal records as multiple times for the defendant, and in particular, immediately before the instant case, he was notified of a summary order by putting the same victim at risk of interference with business, and the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by reporting false facts to the police agency against the reporter operated by the same victim.