A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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. From June 29, 2014, up to 02:40 on the same day to 02:50 on June 29, 2014, the Defendant interfered with the business of the victim’s restaurant business by force, under the influence of force, the victim D, who drinks alcoholic beverages on the e-cafeteria operated by the victim D, without any justifiable reason, expressed a large amount of desire for customers who drink alcoholic beverages in the 10 minutes.

2. At around 02:50 on the same day, the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties by assaulting the Defendant for the maintenance of order and crime control of the above G by a slope G affiliated with the 112-year police box of the old U.S. police station, who was dispatched after having received 112 a report that the Defendant interfered with the restaurant business and frighting the cafeteria, identified the circumstances of the case against the above cafeteria proprietor and its customers, and subsequently soliciting the Defendant to return home, thereby interfering with legitimate execution of duties concerning the maintenance of order and crime control.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each statement made to D and G;

1. A H statement;

1. Application of internal investigation reports (on-site statements of witnesses and attachment of site photographs), on-site photographs, and statutes;

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (Interference with Business, Selection of Imprisonment), and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstruction of performance of official duties and the choice of imprisonment);

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

1. In light of the fact that each crime was committed under the influence of alcohol again on March 20, 2014, even though being punished by a fine of 6 million won on October 20, 2013 due to the refusal to measure alcohol or obstruction of performance of official duties on the part of October 2013 under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, it is necessary to impose a strict punishment. However, even though the crime was committed under the influence of alcohol after being under the influence of alcohol, it appears that the person committed the crime while being under the influence of alcohol, and after being under detention, it appears that the person committed the crime was committed under the influence of alcohol, and that the person’s act was immediately recognized and punished under the influence of alcohol.