2.Provided, That 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 December 2, 2016, the Defendant at the “C” convenience store located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul on December 03:05, 2016, and the Seoul Party dispatched upon receipt of the Defendant’s report of 112 that he was drunk, upon receipt of the Defendant’s request to return home from E by a police officer affiliated with the Pyeongtaek Police Station D police box, and the Defendant went home at the Defendant’s request, while getting out the patrol of the police officer, the Defendant “E” as stated in the facts charged of the police officer’s F.

I explained that I would like to be arrested as a current offender of the crime of interference with the performance of official duties by the police officer G belonging to the police box at hand, "this son, a single assistant," etc., and that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say, "I would like to see I would like to see I would like to see. I would like to say I would like to see the face part of the above G at one time by hand.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on the prevention of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. Application of H’s written Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

2. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition.

3. Selection of sentence of alternative imprisonment;

4. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution (The following sentencing shall be considered as favorable circumstances, etc. in the light of the importance of sentencing):

5. As to the Defendant’s assertion on Article 62-2(1) of the Social Service Order Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on the Protection, Observation, etc. of Protection, etc., the Defendant asserted that the Defendant was in a state of mental or physical loss or mental weakness by submitting a written opinion stating that he was unable to memory under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime. As such, according to the records of this case, the Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted, since it is recognized that the Defendant had drinking alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, but it cannot be deemed that the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or have weak ability to make a decision, and thus,

Reasons for sentencing

1. The sentencing guidelines shall be recommended: Imprisonment;