A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On November 10, 2015, from around 21:12 to 21:27 of the same day, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s restaurant business by force by preventing customers from entering the area where they had a disturbance, such as the string of the Defendant’s daily operation and vision attached to the “D cafeteria” of the victim’s operation of the victim C, which was located in Busan L/C, from entering the area where the Defendant was placed in the floor by hand with the string of the string and the string of the string, thereby obstructing the victim’s restaurant business.

2. On November 10, 2015, at around 21:27, the Defendant: (a) expressed that, in the “D cafeteria” as indicated in paragraph (1) of Article 112 of the same Act, the Defendant: (b) notified the Defendant of the fact of the crime; (c) notified the Defendant of the fact of the crime; and (d) arrested the said police officer as a current offender, the Defendant expressed the said police officer’s desire to “sponse, without any need to do so,” and (c) sent the said police officer’s sprink at one time at his hand.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the arrest of a flagrant offender by a police officer.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made with respect to C, G, and F;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business), Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with the performance of public duties) and the choice of imprisonment for each 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. Interference with the reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on Suspension of Execution [Scope of Recommendation] : Interference with the execution of official duties in mitigation of interference with the execution of official duties: Aggravation based on the criteria for handling multiple crimes in accordance with the Class 1 (Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties and Forced Performance of Duties) ( June - 1 year and April): June -1 year (Special Sentencing Person) (Special Sentencing Person) : Interference with the execution of official duties: The crime in this case is not punishable [Pronouncement Decision]. The defendant interfered with the business of the victim C and interfered with the police officer's performance of official duties as above, and the nature of the crime is not easy.

However, the defendant is against the defendant, and it is easy to interfere with the business.