A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to 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. 업무방해 피고인은 2019. 8. 22. 20:32경 서울 영등포구 B에 있는 피해자 C이 근무하고 있는 ‘D’에서, 피해자에게 욕설을 하고, 과자상자와 막걸리 병 등을 던졌으며, 그곳에 있던 손님에게 욕설을 하고 손을 올려 때리려는 시늉을 하는 등으로 소란을 피워 위력으로써 피해자의 편의점 영업을 방해하였다.

2. On August 22, 2019, the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties, around the entrance and exit of “D” located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the policeF belonging to the Seoul Yeongdeungpo Military Police Station E District, who was dispatched to the site, arrested the F as a flagrant offender with a obstruction of business, leading the F to a defect in arresting him as a flagrant offender, thereby obstructing the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties concerning the arrest of flagrant offenders.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. C’s statement;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

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

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 reason for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Social Service Order Act and Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc. comprehensively considered the following: (a) the background and content of each of the instant crimes; (b) the degree of damage and the degree of assault; (c) the circumstances after the commission of the crime; and (d) the circumstances of the crime; (b) the damage was restored or the victim did not agree with the victim; (c) the record of punishment for the crime accompanied by violence, including the same crime, was three times; (d) there was no record of exceeding the fine; (e) the fact that the victim was diagnosed of the lung cancer on December 2016 and appears to have been treated until now; and (e) other circumstances favorable to