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

Around 04:10 on February 18, 2015, the Defendant: (a) reported that “the Defendant would not pay the drinking value of the Defendant’s daily activities” at the Cju-Saeb, the Defendant: (b) took a bath under the influence of alcohol to G police officers, E, Gyeong-dong Police Station D District D District, the police officer of the Yeongdeungpo-dong Police Station D District, the police f, and patrolmen; (c) f, f, and f, f, f, of E’s face through several times; (d) f, f, f, and f, f, f, in close to the face of E; and (e) f, f,

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of reporting duties by E and G, a police official.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. The police statement of H;

1. A written statement G and I;

1. Application of the investigation report (No. 8) Act and subordinate statutes;

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. The reason for the sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended sentence [Scope of Recommendation] Where the degree of violence, intimidation, and deceptive scheme is minor in the area of mitigation [1~8 months] of the obstruction of performance of official duties (special mitigations] [decision of sentence] of the crime of this case against two police officers], the defendant committed the crime of this case against two police officers, the defendant recognized his/her mistake and reflects it, the defendant did not have any record of punishment for the same crime, and there is no record of punishment for the defendant, only one kind of criminal record after 1989, and all other conditions of sentencing as shown in records and arguments, the sentence is ordered as ordered.