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

1. On August 9, 2014, from around 22:00 to around 23:00 on August 9, 2014, the Defendant obstructed the Defendant’s conduct of disturbance, such as demanding the victim to return home as the victim would have finished his/her business, and making it difficult for the Defendant to have avoided the disturbance, such as taking the victim’s desire to return home, and viewing the urine on the floor within the singing room.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's musical business by force.

2. On August 9, 2014, the Defendant was required to return home from the Daegu Suwon Police Station E District Unit, who was sent to the Defendant upon receiving a report from 112 that the Defendant, as in paragraph (1), her customer, was frighting in the form of alcohol, at around 22:5 on August 22, 2014.

이때 피고인은 경찰관들에게 욕을 하면서 “너네들이 뭔데, 나한테 와서 지랄하노!”라고 말을 하며, 오른손으로 F의 턱을 1회 때리고, 옆에 있던 G의 손목을 할퀸 뒤 손으로 밀쳐 넘어뜨리는 등 폭행을 하였다.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the protection of police officers' lives, bodies, and property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to F, G, and C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the victims' photographs;

1. Articles 314 (1) and 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

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

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (a favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing below) of the suspended sentence is that the defendant committed a contingent crime in his/her speech room, scambling his/her depth, and agreed with the victim C, and the degree of violence or interference with official duties is relatively relatively somewhat less and less, and there is no previous conviction of fine due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act in 1989, and the defendant's age, character, conduct, intelligence, and environment.