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

On September 21, 2019, at around 21:30, the Defendant: (a) when a member of the fishing club, who was as the Defendant, was in the Han River Park between Mapo-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, and 173-1, violated Article 18(1) of the Framework Ordinance on the Conservation and Use of Han River in violation of Article 18(1) of the Han River-gu Framework Ordinance, and controlled by C, a registered security guard belonging to the Seoul Metropolitan Government Office B by using more than four fishing times per capita; (b) he saw the above C’s breath by her hand, i.e., “subb head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head this this,” and (c) tried to leave the above C’s 112 report site, she was removed from the said C, and (d) she dump head head head head head heading with the above C’s c son, and dumbreed with the chest head head head.

Accordingly, the defendant assaulted the above C and interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the guard of Han River Zone.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. C’s statement;

1. Each investigation report and internal investigation report;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing standing photographs;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (a favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing as follows) (a) of the suspended sentence is that the Defendant is against the confession of most of the instant cases.

The degree of violence is not serious.

Defendant has a three-class mental disorder.

[Unjustifiable circumstances] The crime of this case is deemed to have exercised a direct tangible power on the body of the police assigned for special guard under control, and its nature is not good.

Although the Defendant had been punished twice due to the obstruction of performance of official duties, the Defendant committed the instant crime repeatedly.

The damage was not recovered.

In addition to the above circumstances, the punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking account of the factors revealed in the proceedings of the instant case, such as the character, conduct and environment of the Defendant, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, and criminal records.