A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Criminal facts

1. Around March 15:10, 2018, the Defendant who interfered with the business of the Defendant: (a) brought a call at the D branch of KEB Han Bank in Songpa-gu Seoul on the ground that the automatic withdrawal period does not work properly at the D branch of the said KEB Bank; (b) while the Defendant took a large voice that the victim E, who is an employee of the said bank, was waiting to file a petition with the said KEB bank, and there were customers waiting for the said defective bank, the Defendant took a bath to the said victim with the said victim’s “hys, the outcome of the occurrence, and the same year,” and obstructed the Defendant’s business operation by force by avoiding a disturbance for about 10 minutes of the victim.

2. On March 9, 2018, at the place indicated in the foregoing paragraph (1) around 15:20, the Defendant, who interfered with the performance of official duties, expressed that he saw the disturbance as above at the places indicated in the foregoing paragraph (1), or that G, a police officer affiliated with the F District Group of the Seoul Song-gu Police Station, Seoul, who received and called 112 reported, would put the Defendant’s hand to the Defendant’s hand who tried to leave the scene during the process of arresting the Defendant as an offender by interfering with his duties, etc., and tried to do so by asking him on the left part of G.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each written statement of E and H prepared;

1. Side photographs of each victim of violence;

1. CCTV data for committing a crime;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports ( investigation into other persons concerned of the case);

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business, the choice of imprisonment), and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with the performance of public duties and the choice of imprisonment) concerning the crime;

1. The provision of the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the same Act, which provides for aggravated concurrent crimes (aggravating concurrent crimes with the punishment stipulated for a crime of obstructing the execution of heavier official duties);

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the Suspension of Execution (the conditions favorable to the reasons for sentencing as set forth below) [The Defendant’s defense counsel was in a state of mental and physical weakness due to polar disorder at the time of each of the crimes in this case, and evidence with mental symptoms.