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.

1. On June 2, 2017, the Defendant: (a) obstructed the Defendant: (b) 2, 201:48, at the “D singing bar” operated by the Victim C (Ming, 36 years of age) in Jeju Island; (c) singing alone.

E, such as provoking a trial fee and drinking the face of the above E once, etc., approximately 20 minutes of disturbance was obstructed by force, thereby obstructing the victim’s entertainment bar business.

2. On June 2, 2017, the Defendant obstructed the performance of official duties at the place of the preceding port, around 02:08, and at the same time, the Defendant was accompanied by a request to return home from G in the circumstances where the Defendant was called out after receiving a report that “the victim would go to the customer,” and called “the victim would go to the customer.” On the other hand, the Defendant continued to go home from the police box belonging to the Jeju Western Police Station Fast, which was called out. On the other hand, at the entrance of the said dan bar, the Defendant 1 took one time the name of G, and continued to go to drink

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of duties concerning the prevention, suppression and investigation of police officers' crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. A written statement prepared in C;

1. Application of related Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties) and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

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

1. The observation and observation of protection and the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Act; various conditions of sentencing specified in the instant argument are considered; in particular, the circumstances unfavorable to the following circumstances: The unfavorable circumstances that reflect the following circumstances: When the face of a police officer is taken into consideration, etc., the form of assault and the nature of crime is inferior; and the previous records of violence are more than several times;