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

At around 13:00 on November 7, 2018, the Defendant, at the job economy and office of the 5th floor of C viewing, demanded D, a public worker, to place his/her workplace to E in which he/she lives, at the above job region economy and the labor-management job support team at the job economy and office of the 5th floor, he/she tried to leave D the chair who had been in the office of C, who would not immediately accept the demand.

Accordingly, the defendant, by intimidation, interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the placement of public officials.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D, F and G;

1. Written statements of victim in D;

1. A respective fact-finding certificate of F and G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the case

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime. Article 136 (Selection of Imprisonment or Imprisonment);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on probation and community service order has no record of being punished for the same crime, the degree of intimidation, etc. of this case was not serious, the defendant's wrong recognition and non-competence, the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties requires strict punishment as a crime detrimental to the State's function by nullifying the exercise of legitimate public authority, and other factors such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, and other various sentencing conditions as shown in the argument of this case shall be determined as ordered by the order.