A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to 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 December 28, 2017, around 00:30 on December 28, 2017, the Defendant: (a) was disputing with the victim C’s 1st underground floor of Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Incheon, for one’s own singing room (7) that was operated by the victim C; (b) had been gathering the so-called so-called scop and the so-called scopical remains, microphones, etc.; and (c) had been collected with the above scopics and the so-called scopics who were in the singing room; and (d) has interfered with the operation of the victim’s singing room for about

2. The Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties who asked the Defendant whether the victim F, who was the police officer dispatched after being reported to him at the time and place specified in paragraph 1 at the time and place specified in paragraph 1, was the victim F, who was the police officer, to whom 112 was reported, asked the Defendant about whether he was in the state of Marson’s situation, “Is this Chewing gue, who would be in the process of doing so. Where doing so,

Omission Doz.

H. The bit of bitbit of bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of police officers' official duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. Application of attached photograph Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, 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. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Act, the first crime (Obstruction of Execution of Official Duties) for the protection observation and lecture order, the order to attend lecture, and the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order, [the scope of recommended punishment] No. 2 crime (Obstruction of Duties) for which no person exists in the basic area (six months to one year and six months) [the scope of recommended punishment] [the scope of recommended punishment] for the mitigation area (one month to eight months] for the mitigation area (one month and eight months), [the standards for processing multiple crimes] for the punishment [the person who has been specially mitigated] for six months to one year and ten months [the decision of sentence] for six months] for the suspension of execution of official duties (the scope of punishment] for the victim: the victim's work is hindered, and the victim's report is made.