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

On February 2, 2015, at around 10:10, the Defendant reported that D was assaulted by the Defendant at the front corridor in front of the residence of Daejeon Seosung-gu C Apartment 102 Dong 1406, Daejeon, and demanded that D present an identification card from the slopeF belonging to the Daejeon Seosan Police Station Emba, which was called out by the Defendant.

Accordingly, the Defendant: (a) took a bath to F; (b) took a bath to F; (c) “I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am immediately am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am,

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning crime prevention and suppression of police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to police statements made to F, D, and G;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 136 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution [Scope of recommending punishment], obstruction of performance of official duties (type 1), mitigation area, reflectiveness, such as one time of suspended execution related to violence and five times of a fine, one time of suspended execution related to violence, five times of a fine, etc., the degree of damage is relatively minor, motive and circumstance leading to the crime, and the defendant's age, happiness environment, etc.