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

Around 22:00 on January 30, 2015, the Defendant: (a) reported 112 on the front day of Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul; (b) paid the taxi fare and demanded the Defendant to return home from E belonging to the Seoul Seodaemun-gu Police Station D Boxes, Seoul, which called “no taxi driver would pay the fare; and (c) served the Defendant himself on the said E to indicate “this Chewing fright...........”; and (d) assaulted twice the said F’s son’s boom.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers on the maintenance of public peace and order.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement concerning G and F;

1. Application of a law of one copy to a service day of the 112 reported case processing statement, D, and police box;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime concerned;

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

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Taking into account the reflection of gender, etc.);

1. Social service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;