A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four 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.

Punishment of the crime

1. On May 21, 2018, the Defendant obstructed the victim D’s main shop business by force for about 30 minutes, by drinking alcohol at C’s main shop located in Ansan-si, a member of Ansan-si, a member B, without any justifiable reason, while drinking alcohol. In doing so, the Defendant obstructed the victim D’s main shop business by force for about 30 minutes.

2. The Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties at the date, time, and place specified in paragraph 1, and when the Defendant was required to return home from the slope F belonging to the police box of the Ansan-gu Police Station, the Defendant 112 reported that the Defendant was scambling the disturbance, the Defendant scambling the police officers by taking the bath, keeping the above F by hand, keeping the shoulder scam, and cutting the shoulder scam, and assaulting the police officers by taking the scambling the above G by body of the police officer of the Ansan-gu Police Station, who was called out upon receiving a request for support.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on 112 reporting processing work.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to F and G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of D;

1. Article 314 (1) (Interference with Business) and Article 136 (1) (Interference with Execution of Official Duties) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense under the relevant provision of the Criminal Act (Appointment of each imprisonment with prison labor);

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

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. It is so decided as per Disposition on the grounds of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (i.e., the Defendant’s previous convictions for the same kind of crime in 2011 and each fine in 2016, the degree of damage the F, G received, and the agreement with the victim of the obstruction of business) or more.