A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Criminal facts

1. On July 26, 2017, from around 23:30 to July 27, 2017 to around 01:25, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s main business by force by avoiding disturbance, such as spathing, spathing, talking, and noise, while engaging in a dispute as to whether he/she takes advantage of his/her own drinking value with E and drinking value, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s main business by force.

2. On July 27, 2017, around 01:25, at the main point of “D” as indicated in paragraph (1) around July 27, 2017, the Defendant was urged to return home from G (34 tax) in the circumstances where the Seoul Geumcheon Police Station F District was affiliated with the Geumcheon Police Station, who was dispatched to the site after receiving a report from the host for the same reason as Paragraph (1). The Defendant: (a) expressed that “I am, I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I

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

Summary of Evidence

[Judgment No. 1]

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. CCTV images (the fact of judgment No. 2);

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement protocol with respect to G and C;

1. Application of CCTV Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (the obstruction of business, the choice of imprisonment), and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of public duties and the choice of imprisonment);

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. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Social Service Order Criminal Act is that the degree of interference with the instant work and obstruction of the performance of official duties is not less exceptionally, and the quality of the crime is not good, and the damage is not recovered, and the defendant is also prior to the instant crime.