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

Punishment of the crime

1. On December 21, 2014, the Defendant: (a) obstructed the victim’s restaurant business by force for about 15 minutes, such as: (b) around 06:00, the victim C’s “D cafeteria”; (c) the victim C’s “D cafeteria” operated by Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu; and (d) the victim’s restaurant business operation was obstructed by force for about 15 minutes, including: (a) the mixed customer and drinking alcohol; and (b) the side tebrcing customer and drinking alcohol; (b) the customer in the restaurant while taking a bath to the customer in the restaurant.

2. The Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties at the above temporary place, and at the above 112 report site, expressed that he was asked questions from the Assistant F of the Ulsan F of the Police Station E Police Station affiliated with the Ulsan F of the Police Station, who was dispatched to the scene, and obstructed the police officer’s legitimate execution of duties concerning the mobilization of the report by assaulting him, such as drinking franchising the febbbage, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Statement made by the police with respect to C and F;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a criminal investigation report (CCTV image verification);

1. Relevant Article 314(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 choice of imprisonment for each crime;

1. The sentence of punishment is inevitable in that the defendant has been sentenced twice to concurrent crimes due to interference with the performance of official duties of the same kind, etc. even though he/she had the past part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act - The defendant has the past record of repeated crimes of this case: Provided, That the defendant has no past record of crime heavier than the suspension of execution (the defendant has a previous record of a three-time fine), the crime committed contingently under the influence of alcohol, and the degree of intimidation is significant;

It is difficult to see the punishment in light of the circumstances, degree, etc. of the continuation of the instant business interference.