A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

1. On May 19, 2016, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s restaurant business by force over about one hour, such as 20:30 on May 19, 2016, the victim D, “E restaurant without any justifiable reason, carrying the F’s arms to customers in the restaurant, scambling them, and demanding the victim to leave the restaurant,” and the Defendant obstructed the victim’s restaurant business by force during about one-time hours.

2. On May 19, 2016, the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties, and at around 21:35 around 1, 2016, the Defendant was faced with a man with a mental disorder.

“A” on the ground that the 112 report was sent to the site, “I am out of the restaurant,” on the ground that I am out of the restaurant, and that I am out of the restaurant belonging to the G District of the Y of the Y of the Y of the Y of the Y of the Y of the Y of the 112.

B. The term “I” refers to “I,” and as a result, assaulted the B’s clothes one time to walk and walk the clothes of the I, and the I’s clothes, which the I used to stop, were able to walk once again.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers H and I concerning the handling of reports.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made with respect to H, I, and D;

1. Report on internal investigation (including reasons for not notifying arrest and attaching photographs of damaged parts), application of Acts and subordinate statutes to criminal investigation reports (F telephone conversations for a witness);

1. Relevant legal provisions 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 defendant and his defense counsel asserts to the effect that punishment should be mitigated on the grounds that the defendant, who has alcohol dependence, was in a state of mental and physical weakness due to drinking only at the time of committing the instant crime, and thus, was in a state of mental and physical weakness.

The process of the instant crime, which was duly adopted and investigated by the court, is recognized as follows.