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

On March 11, 2014, at the main point of "C" located in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, Seoul, on the ground that the Defendant was drunk and sent to the 112 report, the Defendant: (a) sent the Defendant, on the ground that the head of the police station affiliated with the D District Police Station of the Gyeonggi-nam Police Station D District of the Gyeonggi-gu, Seoul, which was called the Defendant, “I pay the drinking value and go to a ice house”; and (b) the Defendant expressed the Defendant “I me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me us us us us us us us us us us us us us us us us us us we us us we us us we us us us us we see the us.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers on the prevention, suppression and investigation of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of E and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on customer subscription documents and business notification certificates;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. The balance of recommendations for the sentencing guidelines [decision of types] obstruction of the performance of official duties, obstruction of the performance of official duties/performance of duties (the scope of recommendations] from six months to one year and four months (the basic area and no special person shall be punished);

2. The crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties is likely to undermine the authority of the public authority and disrupt the establishment of legal order, and thus, it is necessary to strictly see that the defendant recognized the facts charged in this case and took the attitude of reflecting his mistake. The defendant has no record of being punished or sentenced higher than a fine due to the same mistake, the defendant seems to have committed contingent crimes under the influence of alcohol, and other circumstances shown in the record, such as age, character and conduct, family environment, etc., are considered and judged as ordered within the scope of the sentencing guidelines.