A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Records] On May 21, 2020, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of four months by imprisonment for an injury at the Gwangju District Court on April 21, 202, and the judgment became final and conclusive on May 29, 2020.

[Criminal facts]

1. On May 18, 2020, from around 21:30 to 22:00 of the same day, the Defendant interfered with the Defendant’s business affairs by force, such as: (a) in the C Carter located in the B5th floor in Gwangju Mine-gu, the Defendant was unable to enter the victim D (the 59-year-old) who was in a state of drinking and who was in charge of entering the her house in a state of drinking; (b) was unable to enter the her house in a state of drinking; and (c) the victim was able to continue the her house in a state of drinking; and (d) the victim’s her house in a state of drinking.

2. The Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties at around 22:05 on May 18, 2020, who received a 112 report that there was interference with the duties at the above location, thereby obstructing the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties on the receipt, etc. of 112 reports by the police officer in charge of the police box affiliated with the Gwangju Mine Police Station E commander of the Gwangju Mine Police Station: (a) the Defendant prevented the Defendant from committing the Defendant’s act; (b) the Defendant was aboard the elevator; and (c) the police officer’s self-fash of fladin, which shall be laid down under this title, when he

Summary of Evidence

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

1. Each statement of D and F;

1. 112 Reporting case handling table;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of inquiry results, text of judgment, investigation reporting Acts and subordinate statutes;

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. After Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 39 (1) of the same Act:

1. In light of the fact that the Defendant was punished for the same kind of crime as the sentencing reasons under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act aggravated concurrent crimes, and that the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he was tried by the case recorded in the record of the crime as indicated in the judgment, and that the Defendant’s act of assault against the police officer dispatched due to the obstruction of the Defendant’s execution of duties, etc., and the responsibility for such crime is not less strict.