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.

1. On August 19, 2017, the Defendant, in refusal of withdrawal, received a request from the injured party D'E operated by the injured party D in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, for a change in business operations on several occasions, and affixed a seal following the request from the injured party.

8. From 20:00 to 18, up to approximately 30 minutes refused to comply with the demand for withdrawal.

2. The Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties at the same place as around 00:18, Aug. 20, 2017, at the same time as Paragraph (1) of the same Article; the police officer G, H, and I, etc. belonging to the police station located in the Southern Southern Police Station, who was reported 112, demanded the Defendant to leave after confirming the case from the person who reported the case; accordingly, the Defendant refused to comply with the request; the police officer’s desire to the said police officer; and the police officer’s desire to take a beer; and the Defendant threatens the said police officer to stop tobacco within the said I building.

On the ground that he was able to carry out the duty of legitimate execution of the police officer's 112 reporting duty, such as keeping the I's body with the I's body and keeping I's clothes once as drinking.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made to I by the police;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Photographs;

1. Each report on internal investigation:

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (verification of the status of a police officer I relative to one another);

1. Article 319 (2) and Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act (which does not comply with the eviction) concerning the facts constituting an offense, and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (which interferes with the performance of official duties);

1. The court may, without changing the indictment, punish multiple crimes charged as concurrent crimes with concurrent crimes, as concurrent crimes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 80Do2236, Dec. 9, 1980). Thus, the court recognizes ex officio as concurrent crimes without changing the indictment.

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Joint Obstruction of Execution of Official Duties)

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

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

1. On the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, all the circumstances indicated in the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, sex, family environment, health conditions, and the background and outcome of the instant crime.