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

1. On July 28, 2015, from around 00:30 to 01:02 on the same day, the Defendant searched the inside of the vehicle without authority, such as leaving the vehicle, such as leaving the vehicle into the vehicle by using the gaps of the Erail vehicle owned by the victim D, which was not corrected due to the malfunction of the Era vehicle owned by the victim, and leaving the front seat of the vehicle.

2. When the Defendant received a report on the disturbance of happiness at the same time and place as set forth in paragraph (1) of this Article, and demanded a police officer G working in the F District of the Yananananananan Western Police Station, who was dispatched to the site, to file a petition against the Defendant of an act that is highly seriously and mentally ill, the Defendant expressed that “satisfe away from satch” was “satisfe,” and assaulted, such as drinking the face of the said G one time in a manner that the face of the said G is

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of official duties by police officers on handling 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused;

1. Protocol of the police statement concerning G;

1. Application of the respective Acts and subordinate statutes of D and H

1. Articles 321 and 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is that the crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties among the crimes of this case constitutes the case where the degree of violence, intimidation, and deceptive schemes is minor.

The above criteria shall be referred only to the lowest limit for the crime of searching vehicles for persons related to concurrent crimes, since they are not specified in the sentencing criteria.

The Defendant’s crime of this case is one of the following issues: (a) the Defendant’s vehicle is behind another person’s vehicle without any reason, and interferes with the police officer’s performance of official duties.