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

On January 1, 2015, around C 01:40, the Defendant: (a) 01:40, around the C cafeteria located in Daegu-gu, Daegu-dong Police Station D District, which was called 112 and called 112, and (b) the Defendant, under the influence of alcohol, recommended the Defendant to return home, “at home” and “at home, flasium, inside, and at home, she will come to the house; (b) she will be flasium; (c) at the center of the four-lane road in front of the restaurant, she was placed on the road along the four-lane line in front of the restaurant, she was posted from the roadway to the road, she was flad with the front wheels of the driver patrol of the vehicle, she was flad with the front wheels of the driver patrol, and was unable to move to the back of the vehicle.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning slope E, Inspector F's reporting case processing and patrol.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of the police suspect interrogation protocol against the accused;

1. Statement made by the police officer in G; and

1. Attachment of a copy of work log, attachment of site photographs, each entry of a public official's certificate, or the application of video-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime concerned;

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

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as “the favorable sentencing conditions”) of the suspended sentence has a history of criminal punishment several times, and even though the Daegu District Court had served on December 28, 201 as a result of obstruction of performance of official duties, imposed a fine of KRW 3 million on the same kind of crime, and thus, it is necessary to impose a heavier penalty than a fine.

However, the defendant does not seem to have directly inflicted violence on police officers, and there is no particular damage on police officers or patrol vehicles, and the defendant is blick.