A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Punishment of the crime

On December 11, 2013, the Defendant sentenced 8 months to imprisonment with labor for the crime of interference with business, etc. in the Changwon District Court's Jinju branch on December 11, 2013, and completed the execution of the sentence in the Busan Prison on August 11, 2014

Criminal facts

1. On June 25, 2015, at around 19:50 on June 25, 2015, the Defendant, under the influence of alcohol in the E pharmacy for the operation of the victim D, Gosung-gun, Gosung-gun, the Defendant, despite a demand from the victim to move out of the pharmacy, was made, and the victim was asked to move out of the pharmacy. However, on the same day, the Defendant, without justifiable reasons, shall move out of the pharmacy until the police officer dispatched to the victim as a report by the victim at around 20:01 on the same day, without leaving the pharmacy until the police officer arrives at the pharmacy, and

The Gu refused to comply with the Gu.

2. On August 20, 2015, the Defendant, at around 21:10 on August 20, 2015, demanded several occasions that the victim would have no drinking value, and the victim would be referred to as “in the calculation of tax base: (a) the victim’s convenience store business for the convenience store for 50 minutes by force, such as: (b) the victim’s refusal of the request; (c) the victim’s refusal of the request would have expressed the victim’s desire to be “Chewing.” (d) the victim’s convenience store business; and (d) the victim’s convenience store business operation by force, such as: (a) the victim’s refusal of the request; (b) the victim’s refusal of the request; (b) the victim’s refusal of the request from the victim to be “

3. On June 15, 2016, at the H convenience point as indicated in the foregoing paragraph (2) around 19:19, the Defendant expressed that he would be asked from the J of the Gyeongnam-gu Police Station I District Unit of the Gyeongnam-gu Police Station I District for questioning about the circumstances of the instant case, who was dispatched to the site after receiving a report of 112 regarding the drinking disturbance, and that he would be asked from the J of the said J., and that he would be asked from the said J., the Defendant would be at one time the face of the said police officer at one time.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning 112 reporting handling duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement to J, D, G, and K;

1. Each statement;

1. Fire-proof CCTV.