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

On January 19, 2015, at around 22:20, the Defendant 22:20, sent a disturbance, such as influencing the powder in front of the window C at Changwon-si, and received a report from the victim E (the age of 51) who is a police officer in charge of the D police box called " why he or she would go out of the fire of South and North," and asked the victim of the Party A who was asked questions about "I am going out of why he or she would go out," and "I am out of the floor."

As a result, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning public peace and maintenance of order, and at the same time, the victim was knee kne kne se se s

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 Acts and subordinate statutes to the site and photographs of the body of victims;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. As to the police officers performing legitimate duties for the reason of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution, violence was committed against the police officers performing official duties, and thus obstructing the performance of their duties, and as such, the Defendant did not have the same criminal record, and the Defendant was not subject to the same criminal record, and the Defendant’s mistake was divided. In addition, the circumstances and result of the instant crime, including the Defendant’s age, character