A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. Around 13:00 on August 22, 2014, the Defendant was the person in charge of filing a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of an insurance contract and return of unfair profit with himself/herself at the D Bapopos branch located in Sinpo City D, and the victim E (the age of 49) committed two assaults on the victim’s face at two occasions, two times, one head, and two times, and the victim’s left-hand bucks part.

2. The Defendant interfered with business: (a) entered the date and time set forth in paragraph (1); (b) at the said location; (c) opened the said D wood branch office; (d) opened the Defendant with sound to the effect of invalidity of the insurance contract; and (e) opened the Defendant’s person in charge of filing a lawsuit claiming return of unfair profits; (c) opened the Defendant’s body; and (d) opened the Plaintiff’s insurance business for about thirty (30) minutes by force, such as cutting the chair and glass door on the floor; (d) putting the front door on the floor; and (e) putting the Defendant’s desire to read “Chewing year.”

3. The Defendant destroyed and damaged an advertisement board, at the time and place indicated in paragraph (1), where the market price owned by the victim D is unknown, by hand, by breaking up the advertisement board in which the victim D’s market price is unknown.

4. At around 13:30 on August 2, 2014, the Defendant: (a) obstructed performance of official duties: (b) committed assault by the Defendant on one occasion at the right side of the slope G, i.e., “whether or not the victim’s chest is subject to a fine on the face of the police station”; (c) the Defendant was informed that the customer was frighted and destroyed the fright and damaged the fright; and (d) the Defendant frighted from the slope G belonging to the wooden Police Station Fdistrict, which was called out after the customer was informed that frighted and destroyed the fright.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the dispatch of 112 reported police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. Each statement of E, H and I;

1. Investigation Report (as to explanation of photographs - The scene of the offence), photographic (Evidence Record No. 52 pages) and the application of the statute;

1. Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of violence and the choice of imprisonment) and Article 314 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts.