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

On March 3, 2018, the Defendant is running in front of the “D” restaurant located in Seocheon-si C around 00:42 on March 3, 2018.

It is difficult to avoid female face.

“A police officer, a police officer belonging to the Seocheon-gu E District Police Station E District, who was called out upon the report of 112, was separated from the defendant and female, and asked the circumstances to look at the police officers of this case, whether the police officers of this case “Ise, frien, frien, women’s friends, and friends in friends,” who were called 112;

C. Eargue, women, who were in the house, should be permitted within the house, and they expressed the bath theory that they “Woo kn, knb, knb,” and assaulted the back head of the slope F, which was continuously prevented from doing so, on one hand.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the investigation of police officers' crimes and the maintenance of order.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement concerning G and F;

1. A copy of the E global work site;

1. Investigation report (Analysis of cell phone images submitted by damaged police officers);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a investigative report (to listen to a statement by a police officer of the Hacheon-gu Police Station, the Vice-Jacheon-gu, the E District Police Station);

1. Article 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 Competition;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act is that interference with the execution of official duties by reason of sentencing is to circumvent the legitimate exercise of public authority and to strictly punish it as an act detrimental to the function of the State’

The circumstances favorable to the defendant (the fact that the defendant is recognized to commit the instant crime at the latest in this court) and unfavorable circumstances (the defendant's spouse was dispatched to the public place). The police officer did not recognize his or her own mistake even after the dispatch of the police officer, and rather acted in a threat to the police officer performing legitimate duties.