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

On March 18, 2018, at around 04:15, the Defendant: (a) obstructed the Defendant’s performance of official duties in the “C cafeteria” located in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant cafeteria”); and (b) obstructed the Defendant’s legitimate performance of duties in relation to the handling of the report by the police officers and the arrest of flagrant offenders, who walked on one occasion in the instant cafeteria while taking a bath for the said cafeteria. Upon receipt of a report on 112, the Defendant obstructed the Defendant’s behavior by using the slope E belonging to the Seoul Yongsan Police Station D Police Station, who called on the site and called on the part of the Defendant; and (c) obstructed the Defendant’s performance of duties in the process of arresting a flagrant offender under suspicion of interference with the performance of duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to E, F, and G;

1. Application of a photograph of the scene image of the case and the Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the victims’ photographs;

1. Relevant Article 136 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. The scope of the recommended punishment on the sentencing criteria [the scope of the recommended punishment] the basic area (six months to one year and six months) (no person in special sentencing) shall interfere with the performance of public duties;

2. A normal defendant, who is disadvantageous to the decision of sentence, committed a violent crime even before the crime of this case, seems to have committed a criminal act under the influence of alcohol several times.

The crime of this case was committed by the defendant who was drinking in the restaurant of this case by drinking alcohol, and the police officers were dispatched upon receiving a report, and the defendant saw the police officer's boom, and saw the police officer's boom, and it is not good that the crime was committed in light of the contents of the act, the degree of violence, etc.

There is no criminal offense exceeding a fine in favor of the defendant.

All of his mistakes are recognized, and they are against them.