A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. From Oct. 4, 2016 to Oct. 4, 2016, the Defendant who interfered with his/her duties: An Ansan-si operated by the Victim C (52 taxes, women) from Oct. 4, 2016

D. In the “E cafeteria”, without any justifiable reason, the victim’s business operation was obstructed by force, such as making the victim and his/her customers at the place where he/she had drinking alcohol on the table table, and she had taken a bath to F, who was the customer, without any reason. The victim, who had her speech, recommended him/her to pay the drinking value and return home again. However, even though he/she recommended the victim and his/her customers to do so, he/she did not interfere with the victim’s business operation by force.

2. The Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties, on the ground that H, a police officer belonging to GJ, who was dispatched to the site after receiving a report on the said date and time, at the said place, paid the drinking value to himself and her frighting home, and that he she was employed by the Defendant, who was a police officer belonging to GJJ, who was dispatched to the site at the site.

“Before having expressed the desire,” and assaulted a cell phone with the face of H continuously sustaining the returning home, such as putting the cell phone with which he/she was satisfyed by his/her her satis.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of the witness F;

1. Legal statement of the witness H;

1. Application of each Act and subordinate statutes to video CDs taken by a police officer in mobilization;

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 official duties) and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for the 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. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act [the scope of punishment recommended according to the sentencing guidelines] - Interference with business affairs - Within the mitigated area (one month to eight months) (one month) - Special mitigated person: Interference with execution of public duties, including serious efforts for recovery of damage) - interference with execution of public duties.