A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

1. On May 1, 2014, the Defendant violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) reported the Defendant’s obstruction of duties on September 13, 2013 and was punished by a fine under the police investigation. On May 1, 2014, the Defendant found the victim’s E-real estate office operated by the victim in Seo-gu Incheon, Incheon, at around 16:45, and found the victim’s complaint to be taken against the Defendant’s obstruction of duties, and found the victim’s complaint, and then the victim’s complaint was found in E-real estate office operated by the victim in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, and then the victim’s fine was imposed. The victim’s voice was bread with the victim’s her hand, and the victim’s booms and clothes were boomed by the victim’s hand.

As a result, the defendant provided a written investigation report by reporting about his criminal case investigation or trial, and assaulted the victim for the purpose of retaliation against the imposition of a fine, thereby posing approximately two weeks of treatment to the victim, leading the victim to a scambling, inspection, etc., and interfered with the licensed real estate agent business of the victim by force for about thirty minutes.

2. From May 3, 2014, the Defendant violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Aggravated Punishment, etc.”) and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Aggravated Punishment, etc.”) committed an act of interference with the Defendant’s business under the preceding paragraph at around 15:40 on May 3, 2014, the Defendant was dissatisfied with the notification of the Defendant’s act of interference with the Defendant’s business under the preceding paragraph, and again found in the E-real property office in question, the victim’s face with hacks, and walked with the victim’s hacks. The Defendant continued to have a telephone call with the said client, who was an employee of the said victim’s wife and the office at the said office, had the victim’s macked with the victim’

In this respect.