However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. On April 23, 2019, at around 22:55, the Defendant: (a) avoided the disturbance that D bus engineer’s operation on the garage located in Kimhae-si B was unable to make the demand for his/her departure; and (b) the victim E, a person in charge of the dispatch of the garage, was unable to bring about about 30 minutes for the said vehicle at the lower demand. It was difficult for the Defendant to avoid any disturbance, i.e., assaulting that he/she was imprisoned with the desire to “in the city, why he/she gets off, what he/she is, why he/she is, why he/she is, what he/she is, what he/she is, what he/she is, what he/she is, what he/she is,

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the vehicle management of the victim E by force.

2. In the process of arresting a police officer as a flagrant offender under suspicion of interference with his/her duties by a police officer F or patrolman, the Defendant committed assault, such as holding the left hand hand hand hand of the police officer F, holding the right hand hand hand hand hand of the police officer G, etc., at the time and place specified in the above paragraph (1).

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. A written statement of F and G;

1. Application of video CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Articles 314 (1) and 136 (1) of the Criminal Act of the corresponding Article of the Criminal Act concerning the crime (the point of obstruction of performance of official duties);

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes (Mutual Crimes of Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties);

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

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. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act [Scope of Recommendation) / Interference with Business: Basic area of interference with business (two months of imprisonment or one year and six months): The basic area of obstruction of performance of official duties (two months of imprisonment or one year and six months of imprisonment). The standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor between six months and two years and three months (decision of sentence). The defendant's age, character and behavior, contents of the defendant's violence used, and the crime of this case.