A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On November 15, 2014, around 02:40 on November 15, 2014, the Defendant interfered with the business of the Defendant interfered with the business of the victim’s restaurant business by force by avoiding disturbance, such as smoking tobacco in the “D” located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and being urged by the victim E, the owner of the said business, who was the owner of the said business, and raising an awareness of the disturbance, and gathering the mebbs on the ground that the victim did not bring the me to the me.

2. At around 03:00 on November 15, 2014, the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties: (a) heard the statement of damage by the police officer, who was a police officer belonging to the Seoul Gangnam Police Station, who was dispatched to the scene upon receipt of a report of interference with duties; (b) held that the Defendant’s suspicion was recognized; and (c) took one stop of the said G’s title, flabing the arms of the said G on one hand, flabing the arms of the said G on one hand, flabing the arms of the said G on one hand; and (d) again interfered with the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties concerning handling the reported duties and arresting flagrant offenders.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. E statements;

1. Application of the respective Acts and subordinate statutes on the statement to G and E;

1. Relevant Articles 314(1) and 136(1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of imprisonment;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act under the suspended sentence [the grounds for sentencing [the scope of recommending punishment (limited to obstruction of performance of official duties)] from January to August (the case where the degree of violence is minor as a special mitigation] / although the defendant was unable to accurately memory the situation at the time of the occurrence of the instant crime under the influence of alcohol, he will find out that his act was erroneous after hearing about the situation at the time of the occurrence of the instant crime from the victim interfering with business, and confirm that his act was erroneous, and reflects his depth and depth, and agree with the victim interfering with business.