A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. On October 17, 2019, at around 10:38, the Defendant interfered with business, the Defendant: (a) paid the bus fee of 50,00 won to the passenger bus 59 years old; (b) paid the bus fee of 59,000 won to the passenger bus operated by the victim B (59 years old); (c) however, the victim did not have the cash; (d) the Defendant would transfer the number to the passenger if he was informed of the account number, and (e) around 10:44 of the same day, he would stop at the bus stop in the Hansung subway Station located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Jongno-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul; and (e) the Defendant expressed the desire to “I spick and soon spick and to make the victim get off the bus.”

From 10:53 on the same day, the Defendant continued to demand the victim to change his name money, and then pushed the victim with scam, scambling the scam, cutting the scam, cutting the scam, cutting the scam, and pushed the face in his hand.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the bus operation of the victim by force.

2. On October 17, 2019, the Defendant: (a) around 10:53, and around the bus stops in front of the bus stops in the Handong subway Station; (b) when he was arrested as a flagrant offender from the circumstances belonging to the Sungbuk Police Station D District Unit of the Sungbuk Police Station, he received 112 reports on the interference with the duties described in paragraph (1), and arrested him as a flagrant offender, the Defendant taken care of the face of the said E in drinking, and assaulted the flap with his hand by making the flab and pusheding the face of the said E.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on the handling of 112 reported cases.

The defendant and defense counsel, since the bus stops and all passengers get off, the bus operation service of the victim was completed, the defendant exercised tangible power as stated in its reasoning.

Even if it is argued that the act does not constitute interference with business, but according to the records and arguments, the defendant's disturbance is changed from the bus in operation.