A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On April 12, 2016, at around 21:30, the Defendant stopped a vehicle between about 10 minutes by blocking the traffic of 12 village buses operated by the victim D on the road in front of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on April 12, 2016, and the victim gets on the bus in front of the village bus, and then the victim gets on the bus in front of the village bus in a large voice, “I am before and after the front of the bus, I am spice ....” The Defendant interfered with the victim’s operation of the village bus by force by avoiding disturbance, such as taking it inside the bus.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police about D [The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant was unable to associate the situation at all under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime in this case, but according to each evidence, the fact that the defendant had drinking a considerable amount of alcohol at the time of the crime in this case is recognized, but it does not seem that the defendant did not have or weak ability to discern things or make decisions.]

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business and the choice of imprisonment);

1. The reason for the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act ( considered favorable circumstances among the reasons for the following sentencing) resulted in the Defendant’s main crime committed while serving the Defendant, thereby resulting in a threat of the safety and peace of the passengers on board, other than the victim’s normal bus operation.

On the other hand, the duty that the defendant obstructed is about the operation of the vehicle, which is likely to lead to the second accident, and the danger of the defendant's act also led to the danger of the defendant.

The nature of the crime is also poor.

Even though the Defendant had been punished by a fine due to a relatively similar type of crime, the Defendant repeated the crime.

In light of the above circumstances, the responsibility of the defendant is not weak.

However, according to these unfavorable circumstances, the defendant recognizes the fact of crime as a substitute.