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

around 00:50 on May 5, 2015, the Defendant: (a) sent to arrest a stolen offender on the road in front of the 1203 Seocheon-gu, Busan, Busan, on the ground that he was requested by C in the circumstances where the Busan, North, Police Station affiliated with the Busan, Police Station to produce identification card; (b) was sleeped; and (c) on the grounds that he was demanded by C in the circumstances where he was affiliated with the Busan, North, Police Station Daehan of the Busan, Police Station where he was located, the Defendant expressed that he would be “one-time, one time in the right hand, etc.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties by police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of C, F, G, and H;

1. Statement of witness E in the seven-time public trial records;

1. A copy of a report of arrest of a fine receiver, and a copy of a report of detection of a designated person notified [the defendant] at the location of the State of this case, the defendant asserted to the effect that, at the time of the time, it does not interfere with the police officer's legitimate execution of official duties on the premise of lawful execution of official duties on the ground that the police officer, who presented an identification card between the site and arrested the stolen criminal, and does not demand the defendant to present an identification card, and carried out illegal inspections, such as plucking, plucking out the left side of the defendant who is not a larceny, and forced out of the above main point, without demanding the defendant to present an identification card.

However, the facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, that is, the police officer C was informed that he was a larceny offender, and the defendant presented his identification card to the main point of this case.

and the defendant's demand for the presentation of the identification card of the defendant, and the defendant under the influence of this demand shall be deemed to have been "NN police's reply"

As "", the informant who flabbbbling in police officer's flab and franc, was not the larceny offender, and the defendant is not the larceny offender.