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.

The Defendant, around October 30, 2016, at around 04:40 on October 30, 2016, from the Ecom 2nd floor in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D’s corridor, “Is the front house.”

“Around the 112 report, the Defendant sent to the site and solicited the Defendant to return home, “The NAV, who is going to know whether he or she is in the spule,” expressed the desire to “I am in the spule” to “I am in the spule, who is going to know whether he or she is in the spule,” and assaulted G’s chest on one occasion by spulbling the left shoulder, and by drinking.

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. Application of the statutes on police statements made to G and H

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. The Defendant, on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, again committed the instant crime even though he had the record of being sentenced to a fine of KRW 3 million due to interference with the performance of official duties in 2008.

In consideration of the mode and degree of interference with the execution of official duties of this case, the circumstances before and after the crime, and the attitude of the defendant to repent and reflect the wrong, etc., the same punishment as the order shall be determined.