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.

1. Special intimidation: (a) around July 2, 2017, the Defendant: (b) at the “D main point located in Heungung-gun, Seoul, for the victim E’s day-to-day movement and time-to-day movement on July 2, 2017; (c) destroyed a fluence of a shoulder-to-day disease, which is a dangerous object, and (d) threatened the victim with a threat to “the fluence of a fluence.”

2. Around July 2, 2017, the Defendant obstructed the performance of special official duties, as seen above, and threatened G with a threat, to the effect that: (a) the Defendant: (b) saw the disturbance as being 112 reported and sent out, she was an article dangerous to be removed from G, the police officer of the F District Police Station in the Seoul Special Police Station, the police officer of the F District in the Seoul Special Police Station, G (20cm in width, 10cm in length; 20cm in length; 3.0cm in length; and (c) the Defendant “Ie typ typ ma, the width of the inside, and the death of the inside.”

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous objects and interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning handling reports 112.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement protocol with respect to E and G;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Articles 284, 283(1) (a) of the Criminal Act, Articles 144(1) and 136(1) (a) of the Criminal Act, and Articles 136(1) (a) of the Criminal Act, the choice of imprisonment for a crime;

1. The provision of the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the same Act (the punishment shall be aggravated for concurrent crimes with the punishment prescribed by a crime of interfering with the execution of a special duty heavier than the punishment);

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. Based on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act, the sentencing factors below the sentencing criteria and all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, including Defendant’s age, sex, environment, circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, and circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, a sentence lower than the sentencing criteria shall be determined, and a social service order for 80 hours shall also be issued in order for Defendant to repent his mistake in depth through the community service.

The elements of favorable sentencing are recognized by the defendant.