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

On March 24, 2015, at around 02:15, the Defendant: (a) received a report that the drug dispute was frightened in front of the Dongdong-si B and the nineth floor Curter; and (b) sought to identify the Defendant’s personal information, such as the slope E belonging to the D District of the Ansan Police Station, the Defendant she called the “feste fright, with a warrant,” and used the alcohol disease to fright E, with both hands, during the period where the Defendant was faced with the disturbance due to the flashing of the foregoing E, and assaulted the flag with the wall.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate performance of official duties concerning investigation by police officers on the crime scene.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report internal investigation (explosion, attachment, etc. of field photographs), and report internal investigation (explosion, etc.);

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 (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. Reasons for sentencing of Article 62-2 (1) and the main sentence of Article 62-2 (2) of the Criminal Act on Probation [Scope of Recommendation] : Reduction area (Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties and Compelling of Duties) (1 to 8 months) of the mitigation area (1 to 1 month) of the Punishment (2) of the Act on Probation; 2 years of suspension of execution in six months of imprisonment;