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

On May 8, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 02:40, at the Namyang-si, B Apartment 1111, and reported that the Defendant 111 dong 111 and 11104, and sent out, the Defendant obstructed the Defendant’s legitimate performance of duties regarding the police officer’s patrol by assaulting or threatening the police box affiliated with the Namyang-si Police Station C commander of the Namyang Police Station, and the Defendant, who was called out after having received a report that the Defendant frighted the fright, saying, “Any defect in getting out of the f12 patrol vehicle and getting out of the house”; (b) a defect in getting out of the f12 patrol vehicle; (c) a defect in getting out of the said vehicle; (d) a vehicle patrol is obstructed by one minute behind the said vehicle’s cell phone; and (d) a frighter and scars have taken off the front glass of the patrol vehicle.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statement to E;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts (the point of obstruction of performance of official duties);

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes (Punishment prescribed for the crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties against E by police officers with heavier rank);

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Suspension of execution under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (including the fact that the criminal defendant repents his/her mistake in depth);

1. The Defendant alleged that the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental retardation under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime under Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Probation, etc. Act. Thus, according to the aforementioned evidence, the Defendant was found to have been under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime, but was found to have had no ability to discern things or make decisions.

Since it seems that the defendant was in a state or weak condition, the above assertion by the defendant is rejected.