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.

Punishment of the crime

1. On March 5, 2016, the Defendant obstructed the Defendant’s business by taking account of the fact that the Defendant works for the victim C (69 years of age) who is security guards at the Jung-gu apartment site B, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-gu, Seoul-do office of guard (69 years of age), rather than the ordinary place of work. The Defendant was able to avoid disturbance between approximately 40 minutes of age, such as pressing the victim’s chest by hand, and pushing the victim’s chest by another hand.

The Defendant, by force, interfered with the victim’s apartment security service.

2. On March 5, 2016, at the same place as Paragraph 1 of Paragraph 1 of the same Article, the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties: (a) the Defendant, upon receiving a report from 112, recommended E to return home to the victim by a police officer belonging to the Ulsan Southern Police Station D police station, Ulsan, who called out after receiving a report, and recommended E to return home to the victim; and (b) the Defendant may die with E “if the internal alcohol is less, she will have kid the same police force.”

Madern, “Madern,” and the hand floor of E was tightly sealed once.

The Defendant assaulted E, thereby obstructing police officers from performing their legitimate duties in relation to the handling of 112 reporting duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to C, F, and E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on investigation reporting;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business) and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

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. On the grounds for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution of Punishment, Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, crimes 1 [the scope of a recommendation] [the scope of a punishment ] that a defendant has been subject to a fine twice for the same kind of crime (Interference with Duties) (from June to January 1), the basic area (the scope of a recommendation) [the scope of a punishment ] that there is no person subject to special sentencing / [the scope of a recommendation / [the scope of a punishment ] the mitigated area (one month to August 8), [the person subject to special mitigation] [the scope of a punishment / [the final sentence due to the aggravation of multiple crimes] from June to January 8 [the scope of a punishment / [the decision of a sentence], even though the defendant had been subject to a fine twice for the same kind of crime, he again committed the crime.