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 October 25, 2015, at around 20:30, the Defendant: (a) arrested him as a current offender from the police officer E affiliated with the instant police box, for the suspicion of assaulting D in front of the police box; and (b) took a bath to the police officer E, who was requested to present his identification card, such as “the head of both flaps,” and flab, carried with flab, carried with ebbbb, and was pushed.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties related to the suppression of police officers' crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement in each police statement made to D or E;

1. To describe the body parts of the damaged body and photographs of sloping parts and the application of video-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

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. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Social Service Order Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on the Protection, Observation, etc. [the scope of applicable sentences under the law] [the scope of applicable sentences under the law] 5 years or less of imprisonment [the scope of recommended sentences] The basic area of interfering with the performance of official duties among the groups of crimes interfering with the performance of official duties / [the scope of recommended sentences]: From June to April [the decision of sentenced punishment] from June to June 1, and from June to June, it is necessary to strictly punish the police under two years of suspended sentence. Thus, the defendant shall be sentenced to imprisonment.

However, the execution of punishment is suspended in consideration of the fact that the act of assault by the defendant was not serious, that the defendant led to the confession of the crime, that the defendant is against himself/herself, and that he/she does not have the same criminal record.

However, considering the fact that the defendant committed the crime of this case under the influence of alcohol on February 20, 2015 even though he/she received a summary order of KRW 5 million on April 13, 2015 due to the criminal facts that he/she driven on February 20, 2015, he/she shall order the defendant to provide community service.