[criminal records] The Defendant was sentenced to four months of imprisonment with labor and two years of suspended execution on March 9, 2017 by the Suwon Franchisor, and the judgment became final and conclusive on the 17th of the same month, and is still under suspended execution.

[2] On June 14, 2018, at around 23:40, the Defendant: (a) received a report from the main 112 report that the main cab in front of the building B in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Seoul, and sent a warning to the Defendant, such as the seat Da, etc. belonging to the Seoul East-gu Police Station C District Gyeong-gu, Seoul, to leave the scene, and to leave the scene; and (b) tried to take the front 21 patrol car, and then take the front her seat in the front of the building B in order to start, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of public duties by the police officer, such as assaulting the Defendant at the front her seat at the seat of the police station C of the Dong-gu, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, and giving him/her a warning to her to her: (c) taken the front her seat at hand; (d) taken the front her seat at hand; and (d) taken the front her seat intentionally; and (e) obstructed the police officer’s legitimate execution of public duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. A E-document;

1. 112 A list of reported cases;

1. Investigation report (Sable 24 Track images verifications);

1. Investigation report (verification of on-site CCTV);

1. Photographs of the suspect taken by the police officer in charge of mobilization;

1. Previous conviction in judgment: Application of a reply letter to inquiry, such as criminal history;

1. In light of the circumstances favorable to the defendant, the pertinent Article of the criminal facts, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act regarding the selection of punishment, and Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act, the reason for sentencing of punishment of imprisonment is favorable to the defendant, and the fact that the defendant, as stated in the previous conviction in the judgment, was under the instant crime only for the reason that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol without being aware of the fact that he was under the suspension of execution even though he had been under the influence of liquor due to the crime committed before and after the suspension of execution, shall be taken into account