A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On April 12, 2018, at around 00:30, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s main business by force, such as 'D' operated by the victim C, a male employee of the said business establishment, driving away from the 'D' main shop operated by the victim C, Daegu-si, Daegu-si, and Daegu-si, and carrying clothes into his/her own side, demanding a drinking counter, and demanding a drinking counter, in which he/she is demanded to do so from the victim of the business, who is the main place of the business, talks himself/herself, talks himself/herself and takes a bath, and damages the beer’s disease on the table, which was on three occasions at the stage floor, and thereby interfered with the victim’s main business.

2. The Defendant obstructed the performance of official duties, at the same time and place as Paragraph 1, and at the same time and place of Daegu Month, who received 112 reports, committed assault, such as breaking the flaps of the said E, by cutting off the right shoulder of the said E, cutting off the flaps, cutting off the flaps of the flaps, cutting off the flaps, and cutting down the flaps of the flaps of the said E, and cutting down the flaps of the inside of the said E in his hand.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of the reported case by the police officer.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement protocol against C and E;

1. A criminal investigation report (in cases of a suspect's disease photographs of a caps), a criminal investigation report (in cases of the analysis of video data taken by a police officer in the dispatch of a police officer), and a criminal investigation report;

1. Application of the statutes governing the place of service for the F police box;

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

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. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is the sentencing factor unfavorable to the defendant, such as: (a) the defendant interfered with the victim’s restaurant business; and (b) the fact that the defendant used violence to police officers performing official duties; and (c) the defendant has been punished by violence or drinking-related crimes.

On the other hand, the defendant committed the crime of this case.