A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, 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

1. A special intimidation: (a) around 19:30 on May 29, 2019, the Defendant: (b) at the “C convenience store located in Won-si B”, the victim D ( South and the age of 23) who is an employee was unable to make a proper calculation; and (c) at the same time, the Defendant threatened the victim with an illness, which is a dangerous object on the accounting platform.

Accordingly, the defendant carried a dangerous object, and threatened the victim with a disease.

2. The Defendant interfered with business, such as the date and time, place, and paragraph (1), as described in paragraph (1), threatened the victim D with the illness of the victim, “huming”, “huming the victim,” and “huming the convenience store” between the Defendant and the convenience store, and opened the entrance to the drinking door, etc. from the convenience store to the convenience store, so that the Defendant 10 minutes of the disturbance from the convenience store outside of the convenience store and the convenience store may put the customer out of the convenience store, and prevented the customer from entering the convenience store.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the convenience store business of the victim by force.

3. On May 29, 2019, the Defendant requested the police officer E to make a statement of personal information at the place indicated in paragraph (1) at around 19:48 on May 29, 2019, and at the 112 report to the effect that “the Defendant gets a disturbance,” and requested the Defendant to make a statement of personal information from the police officer E belonging to the original police station who called out after having received the report, and the Defendant breaddd the above E’s shoulder with the mother used by the Defendant on several occasions, and assaulted the victim’s shoulder and the b

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on handling 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness D, E, and F;

1. Each protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the defendant;

1. Each police statement of E and F;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of field photographs, each investigation report, Chapter 1 (CtV images) statute;

1. Articles 284, 283 (1), 136 (1), and 314 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37 and Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act are applicable;