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

Around August 20, 2020, the Defendant made a insulting speech to D in front of C’s photographic official in Seoul, North Heung-gun, Seoul, on August 20, 2020, and voluntarily accompanied the police officer who was dispatched to the site after receiving a report of 112 in relation to the incident, with the police officer who was dispatched to the site.

At around 22:25 on the same day, the Defendant expressed his desire to ask questions about the circumstances of the instant case at the F District Office of the Seoul Police Station F District Office located in the Southern-gun G of the same day from the Inspector H of the said District, and assaulted the said H on one occasion by walking the sexual part of the said H, by walking.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning the handling of reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made with respect to D, E, and H;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of investigation report (F ctV video confirmation and storage ctV images confirmations for crime prevention and appendix cd).

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (Consideration of the fact that the defendant reflects his fault in depth, the family environment, health conditions, etc. of the defendant);