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

On September 23, 2019, at around 19:00, the Defendant received a report of 112 stating that “A person who takes alcohol shall not have any person who takes alcohol” in front of Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu C, and who was called to the site, and asked the Defendant to report the details of the report by E, the police officer assigned to the Seoul Songpa-gu Police Station D District, and F, on the ground that he returned the person who reported 112, takes a bath for the reason that he returned the person who reported 112, and continuously pushed the F’s shoulder with his hand, and assaulted the Defendant, such as: (a) the police officer was shicking the F’s knee of the Defendant at his horse.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning crime prevention and maintenance of order.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of E and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime concerned;

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

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

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

1. In full view of the following factors: (a) it is necessary to strictly punish the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties in order to establish a legal order of the country with reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act and eradicate the light of public authority; (b) the Defendant has been punished several times of violent crimes; and (c) the Defendant has failed to take advantage of the police officer and the degree of assault; and (d) the sentencing conditions specified in the trial process of the instant case