A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. Around November 28, 2017, the Defendant: (a) refused a request by the victim D’s “E” store operated by Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Jung-gu, to change time at the victim D’s singing shop; (b) thereby interfering with the victim’s main business by force by spreading the sound on the floor throughout 30 minutes; and (c) by avoiding disturbance.

2. The Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties by assaulting the police officer G, who was called out after receiving a report of disturbance at the time and place specified in the preceding paragraph, to take a bath without any justifiable reason, and walking the chest and the bridge of the police officer, and obstructing the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties concerning the mobilization of the report.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to D or G;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the business permit and the list of reported cases;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, 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 former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. The defense counsel on the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the suspended sentence of the Criminal Act asserts that the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical weakness under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime. As such, according to each of the above evidence, even though the Defendant was in a state of drinking alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was deemed to have been in a state of lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions, considering all the circumstances such as the content of the instant crime, the Defendant’s speech and behavior before and after committing the instant crime, and the circumstances after committing the instant crime.

As such, the above assertion cannot be accepted.

The reason for sentencing is that there is no basic area (6 months to one year and six months), the basic area (6 months from June to one year) (the person who is subject to special sentencing) of the first type of crime (the scope of recommended punishment) (the interference with the performance of official duties).