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

On May 26, 2020, at around 17:15, the Defendant: (a) received a report from the Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government “Cju shop” and confirmed the site conditions by hearing the statements of the party concerned, such as the situation belonging to the Seoul Geumcheon Police Station D District E, etc. dispatched to the site after receiving a report from 112 stating that “A guest fright at a shop” was frighted; and (b) assaulted upon the back of the case E due to the sudden drinking.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning the handling of reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the investigation report (CCTV verification);

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Circumstances unfavorable to the reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act: The Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of suspended execution due to drunk driving.

The favorable circumstances: The defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflects it.

There is no criminal record for the defendant.

The defendant started to make efforts to avoid re-offending due to alcohol such as receiving alcohol treatment, and his family members also endeavor to pay attention to and make efforts to prevent re-offending.

The above circumstances and other circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., and the sentencing conditions specified in the present arguments and records, shall be determined as ordered by the sentence.