However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On January 18, 2016, at around 03:45, the Defendant: (a) was sent to the entertainment station C at around 03:45, and was reported on the unpaid drinking value at the entertainment station C; (b) was asked the police officer’s slope E to ask questions about personal information from the police officer assigned to the police station D police station; and (c) was sent to the F of the same police station affiliated with the same police station where the Defendant was in front of, and was in front of, the Defendant: (a) expressed that the relevant slope E would have taken a bath to the police officer; and (b) continued to have the above slope F of the police officer, “the head of the ice, swelth, swelth, swelth, swelth, and swelth, swelth, and swelth, swelth, and swelth, swelth, and swelth, swelve.”

Defendant spit the above police officers who were arrested as a flagrant offender of the crime of interference with the performance of official duties from the above police officers due to the above acts. Defendant spit the above police officers' face to the face of the above police officers who want to board the patrol vehicle. Defendant spite the above police officers. Defendant spite interfered with legitimate performance of duties concerning the handling of the police officers' criminal reports and the arrest of flagrant offenders.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of statutes on police statements made to E, F, G, and H;

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

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

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

1. Considering the observation of protection and the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Act and the fact that the crime of this case is considerably not good, strict punishment against the accused is required.

However, the defendant's mistake is divided, the defendant has no particular criminal record in addition to two times of fine, and the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment.