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

On May 03, 2014, at around 00:25, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the police officers assigned to the Incheon Gyeyang Police Station C commander of the Incheon Gyeyang Police Station, dispatched after receiving a traffic accident report prior to 163-9, Seo-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, to listen to witness’s statements; and (b) took a bath to “I will see whether I am sprink, I am spice, I am spice, I am spice, drinking, and am spice, I am spice, a police officer assigned to the above police box where I am spice, and am spice, “I am spice, spice, sprinked, spiceed, sprinked, I am spice,” while taking a bath to the police officers assigned to the above police box where I stop this.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers for handling 112 reports and maintaining public order.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to D and E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (field situations, etc.);

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act selecting a penalty;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Scope of the balancing of recommendations according to the sentencing guidelines (each decision on the suspension of performance of official duties) / (decision on the suspension of official duties / [decision on the scope of recommendations] basic area / [decision on the suspension of official duties] / [the scope of recommendations] 6 months to 1 year and 4 months [the result of the aggravation of multiple offenses] 6 months to 2 years; and

2. In order to establish the legal order of the country where the sentence was rendered and eradicate the light of the public authority, it is necessary to strictly punish the crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties. However, the punishment is determined as ordered by taking into account all the sentencing conditions indicated in the argument of the instant case, including the fact that the Defendant is against the recognition of his mistake and that there is no same and serious criminal record.