A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, 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

1. Around 01:00 on January 29, 2014, the Defendant interfered with business: (a) heard the victim’s speech that it would be good to return home due to a large amount of alcohol, and (b) made it impossible for customers to enter the restaurant by avoiding disturbance for about 30 minutes, such as “Isscopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopics, scopic scopics, and scopic scopics.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's restaurant business by force.

2. At around 01:30 on January 29, 2014, the Defendant: (a) expressed the disturbance in front of the “E cafeteria” as indicated in the foregoing paragraph (1) above; (b) expressed that “I wish to die; (c) I want to kill son; and (d) expressed the son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on the maintenance of order.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of each statute on police statements made to D and F;

1. Relevant Articles 314(1) and 316(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment for the crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The Defendant alleged that he was in a state of mental or physical disability under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime. Thus, according to the evidence as seen earlier, it cannot be seen that the Defendant was aware that he had drinking alcohol at the time of the instant crime, but did not have reached a state where he lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions. Thus, the above assertion is acceptable.