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. On April 22, 2015, at around 21:40, the Defendant: (a) took the influence of alcohol in D operated by the victim C in Busan, and had a good reputation with the victim C, thereby interfering with the victim’s main business operation by force, such as “I ambling without the horns of rhinoceros,” and “I ambling so that I ambling, I ambling with the victim’s main business.”

2. On the same day, at around 22:15, the Defendant received 112 report that the Defendant frighted, and obstructed the Defendant’s legitimate execution of duties as to the investigation, such as “lowly Chewing police unit” and “lowly Chewing police unit grow up and down at the police station,” and thereby interfered with H’s legitimate performance of duties as to the investigation.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of laws and regulations on police statements made to C, H, G, and I;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (the scope of recommending punishment) of the suspended sentence;

1. The crime of interference with business: Reduction of interference with business (8 months);

2. Crimes of obstruction of the performance of official duties: Basic category of obstruction of the performance of official duties (in June - 1 April).

3. Aggravation based on standards for handling multiple crimes: June -1 year and August.

1. Interference with business: No penalty surcharge;

2. There is no obstruction of performance of official duties (decision of sentence ] The crime of this case is not that of obstructing the defendant's bar business of victim C, assaulting the police officer in mobilization to obstruct the execution of official duties.

However, it is against the defendant.