The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

1. On July 16, 2017, at around 23:30 on July 16, 2017, the Defendant: (a) carried the quizzle, bridged in the c “C” victim B located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, with his/her employees’ hand; and (b) laid down the house on the floor of the bridge.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's C business affairs by force.

2. On July 17, 2017, at the same place as before and after around 00:10 on July 17, 2017, the Defendant, who obstructed the performance of official duties, attempted to remove the Defendant’s actions by police officers D and E, dispatched after receiving a report of 112 of the aforementioned contents, and attempted to remove the Defendant’s actions by double-minuteing and selling DNA’s head debt.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties by police officers on the prevention of danger.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. A written statement of F and E;

1. Application of CCTV image Acts and subordinate statutes in C;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 316(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 public duties), and the selection of fines for the crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. A fine of two million won to be suspended;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 59(1) of the Criminal Code of the Suspension of Sentence (the crime of this case interferes with the business of the defendant as indicated in the judgment without any particular reason, and interferes with the performance of official duties by using violence against the police officer dispatched after receiving a report on the crime. However, the case is not easy. However, it appears that the defendant was living together with the defendant at the time of this case. The victims of each crime of this case do not want punishment against the defendant. The victims are still aged university students, and the defendant is the first offender who had no criminal history prior to this case, considering all of the sentencing conditions specified in the argument of this case.