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 January 20, 2016, the Defendant: (a) sent to the site after receiving a report from 112 to the effect that the Defendant was drunkly driven by the Defendant in the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Daejeon, on January 20, 2016; and (b) expressed the circumstances of the case, E, who was called the Daejeon Police Station D District Unit, called the Defendant’s defect to be genuine; and (c) received the face face part of the above E on one hand, and obstructed the police officer’s legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of the reported case.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A written statement;

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

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

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

1. Although the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of the Social Service Order is not good, the fact that a mistake is repented and reflected, that part of the amount is deposited for the damaged public official, that there is no previous conviction or more than a suspended sentence, etc. In addition, considering the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, etc., the punishment as ordered shall be determined by taking into account all the conditions for sentencing specified in the arguments of this case