A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten 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.

Punishment of the crime

1. Obstruction of business;

A. On April 19, 2016, from around 00:05 to around 00:25, the Defendant: (a) informed the Defendant’s home room in which the Defendant’s home seat was administered; (b) changed the Defendant’s home room to be known; and (c) the Defendant refused to do so; and (d) the Defendant expressed the Defendant’s home room to “Chewing gushee.” In doing so for about 20 minutes, the Defendant told the Defendant to resist and let the customer who was accommodated in the her home room.

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

B. On May 18, 2016, from around 23:30 to May 19, 2016, the Defendant filed a request for help with the victim G located in the former Military F from around 23:30 to May 19, 2016, on the ground that the Defendant did not mislead the victim G’s request for help.

What is the internal organ?

Along about 40 minutes, customers who were in the place of a bath, such as throwing the flowers, etc. on the floor, were unable to enter the said entertainment place by avoiding disturbances for about 40 minutes.

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

2. On May 19, 2016, the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties at the place specified in the foregoing paragraph 1-B around 00:10, and at the place specified in the above paragraph 1-B, during the process of obstructing the business of the above G’s main shop, the slope J affiliated with the former police station I box called out after receiving a report by the Defendant 112, prevented the Defendant from committing the Defendant’s act. It is time when the Defendant called to the shot hump hums. to “

Doz. Doz. Doz.

Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz.

“In doing the bath theory as “,” and assaulted, such as flabing and sculing the bat of the said J.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the prevention of crimes by police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against J, G and D;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs and instant photographs by capturing each CCTV image;

1. Relevant Article 136(1) and Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment.