A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

except that 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

Defendant,

1. On February 7, 2012, around 19:10, on the ground that, without calculating in the “E” operated by the victim D (n, 34 years of age) located in Gwangju-si, the victim was sbling the bread by hand, sbling the food, and causing the victim to drink and drink without calculating it, the victim interfered with the victim’s tasks, such as 30 minutes of the victim’s tasks, by voiceing the victim “Y-sik kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kbsk,” and making it possible for the victim to do so

2. A police officer’s legitimate performance of duties concerning suppression and investigation of crimes, such as Haak G and Haman, who had been dispatched after receiving a report at the above date and at the above place, filed a motion, stating that “I will interfere with his/her duties, going out of the scope of his/her duties, and going out of the scope of his/her duties,” and “I will see the Defendant,” and “I will am off the opening so that I will am off, I will am off, and am off.”

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statements in the fifth trial records;

1. Partial statement of a witness I in the sixth protocol of the trial;

1. Legal statement of the witness H;

1. Results of the verification of CCTV image data of this court;

1. Each police statement made to H and D;

1. Written Statement;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business on the market), Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with performance of official duties on the market), 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;

1. According to the reasoning of the sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, the court did not reach an agreement with the victims on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant’s legal attitude that could sufficiently recognize the facts charged of obstruction of performance of official duties even though it could be sufficiently recognized; and (b) the Defendant’s attitude and degree of interference with business that could be known from the CD verification.