A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who engages in slaughter and sales business of dogs in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, Seoul.

On June 5, 2018, at around 10:00, the Defendant: (a) when the public officials belonging to the Sungnam-gu Office and Sungnam-gu Office remove the sugar, spath and mar-gu treatment facilities installed by the Defendant in the above C (hereinafter “Donnam-gu”) as administrative vicarious execution, the Defendant demanded the said public officials to separate slaughter-related facilities from the above C and transfer the facilities related to slaughter to the truck to the designated storage place; (b) the victim E (59 years of age) who is a public official belonging to the Sungnam-gu Office D Team in Sungnam-gu Office to return the facilities related to slaughter to the truck; and (c) the victim Nonparty E (59 years of age) who is a public official belonging to the Sungnam-gu Office D Team in charge of Sungnam-gu Office, committed assaulting the victim by having the victim’s chest

The Defendant continued to interfere with the movement of the victim G (the age of 67) who is a public official of Sungnam Viewing F, to a storage place on the truck, and the victim G (the age of 67) who is a public official of Sungnam Viewing F was the Defendant, and assaulted the victim by cutting the victim G into the bottom of the truck by pushing the victim G.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of administrative vicarious execution by public officials.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and G;

1. The police statement of H and I;

1. A written accusation;

1. A report on the results of administrative vicarious execution and a written improvement of administrative vicarious execution;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a investigative report (to screen a screen with a moving image);

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act as to the facts constituting the crime;

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

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. As to the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (a favorable consideration of the reasons for sentencing below), the Defendant and the defense counsel have a tangible force in the process of blocking the Defendant’s request by a public official for delivery of facilities related to slaughter at the time of removal in violation of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.