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

At around 03:00 on July 31, 2019, the Defendant reported on 112 the content that “domestic violence situation occurred” in front of Asan City B apartment C heading on July 31, 2019, and sent out the D District Unit of the Asan Police Station D District of the Asan Police Station to check the field situation, “A”, “B”, “E’s hand and shoulder are pushed off, and the Defendant continued to go against the wall by sticking the chest part with arms.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties in relation to the prevention, suppression and investigation of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of investigation reports (Attachment of video recording images at the time of entrance into the site), and application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to closure of a major surface;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act;

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

1. Probation and community service order Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act acknowledges and reflects the defendant's error in sentencing, and there is no record of crime except punishment once for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act in 2002. The crime of obstruction of performance of official duties needs to be punished as a crime that undermines the function of the State by nullifying the legitimate exercise of public authority. The degree of assault in this case, the number of police officers subject to the crime, the motive, means and consequence of the crime, the defendant's age, character and behavior, the environment, the motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, and other various sentencing conditions specified in the arguments in this case shall be determined as ordered.