A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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. On December 11, 2014, the Defendant interfered with business: (a) around 21:15, the Defendant: (b) went to the front of the KOB and obstructed the eating and ordering of other customers by avoiding disturbance for about 40 minutes on the ground that the victim D (the victim, who is an employee, was 28 years of age) obtained the Defendant’s signature in the process of obtaining the order and approved the card without obtaining the Defendant’s signature; and (c) went to the front of the KOB; and (d) interfered with the eating and ordering of other customers.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate restaurant business of the victim by force.

2. The Defendant, at the time and place specified in Paragraph 1, was demanded to send it to the above restaurant, such as “at least three times as to whether the Defendant would interfere with the business,” on a total of three occasions from the victim D.

However, the defendant did not comply with the notification of the victim on the same day at around 21:55 on the same day and did not leave the police officer F of the Suwon Police Station E District Unit until he is arrested the defendant, and does not leave the defendant without justifiable grounds.

The Gu refused to comply with the Gu.

3. On December 12, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around 03:55, at the Suwon-si Police Station criminal charge of the Suwon Police Station located in Suwon-si, Seowon-ro 1673 and the office of the three teams of criminal affairs, such as obstruction of business, etc., the Defendant was investigated; (b) the fact of multiple times should be clarified; (c) the Defendant was able to undergo an investigation from H as if the Defendant was a pro-friendly G; and (d) stated “G” at the end of the protocol of interrogation of the Defendant’s suspect; and (c) carried the Defendant’s seal.

Accordingly, the Defendant forged another person’s signature for the purpose of exercising the right.

4. The Defendant, at the time and place specified in paragraph (3), issued the suspect interrogation protocol containing a forged G’s signature as stated in paragraph (3) to H as if he were aware of the forgery and exercised it.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the suspect examination protocol (Evidence No. 7);

1. Criminal facts;