However, the execution of imprisonment for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Defincing the Defendant, at around November 16, 2016, at around 03:18, the victim E, a police officer belonging to the Seoul Gangnam-gu Police Station D District, who was called out after receiving a report that the Defendant 112 was fincing him/her without calculating the amount of food and having a C employee required to return home from the victim E, a police officer belonging to the Seoul Gangnam-gu Police Station D District, who was called out.

Is the police.

The victim publicly insultingd the victim by referring to this weather ar.h.).

2. On November 16, 2016, the Defendant: (a) received a report at the same place around 03:23 on November 16, 2016, and sent to the police officer E, who called “police on the finite and chest”; and (b) took three times the chest of E by drinking.

As such, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning the prevention, suppression, and investigation of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement in a complaint;

1. Entry in the police statement protocol with respect to E and F;

1. Application of the mobile phone image CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of Article 136 (1) and Article 311 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts (Selection of Imprisonment with labor);

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (see, e.g., Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act);