A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

1. On May 13, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 13:00, at the “E restaurant” restaurant of the victim D’s “E” operated in Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si; (b) around 30 minutes, the Defendant, while entering and drinking as a customer, fladding female-friendly thoughts; (c) flading a sound; and (d) flading a table, flading his name and flading his customers out of the school; and (c) flading them to take out of the school.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the victim's restaurant business by force.

2. The Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties at the time, time, and place specified in paragraph 1, after receiving a report from 112 that the Defendant spawn the spath as described in paragraph 1, and sent out to the site, and thereby, sent back the Defendant’s spath from one other, G, the police officer of the F District Police Station in the Seocheon-gu Seoul Special Police Station, Seocheon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and sent back to the site. The Defendant spathed the Defendant’s spath to the above G, etc., and spathd, “I shall interfere with the performance of official duties if you spath, spath, spath, and spath,” and threatened G with the Defendant’s spawnh to the victim of drinking by drinking.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes in which each police statement protocol with respect to G and D is entered;

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. Circumstances favorable to the reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes: The Defendant appears to have led to the confession of the instant crime and to repent of his mistake; the Defendant’s act of committing the instant crime is deemed to interfere with another person’s business under the influence of alcohol; the use of violence against a police officer dispatched therefrom; and the Defendant has already been committed.