However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On November 4, 2016, at around 22:55, the Defendant was arrested as a flagrant offender under suspicion of fraud from the circumstances belonging to the D District District of the Busan Police Station, which called out after receiving a report that he did not pay the drinking value at the main point of “C” located in the Busan District, the Defendant caused damage to the character of spite, spite, and spite on the face of the above E twice on the face of the above E, and caused injury to the victim E (the 49 years old) by taking the inside of the above E on one occasion at the time when the victim E (the 49 years old) cannot be identified.

As a result, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties by police officers on arrest of flagrant offenders, and at the same time injured the victim E.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. Statement made by the police to F and E;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties) and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Although the punishment of the defendant for the reason of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is heavy, the punishment as ordered shall be determined by taking into consideration all the normal data shown in the trial process, such as the fact that the defendant is led to confession, the fact that there is no criminal record exceeding the past fine, the age, occupation, health status, family relationship, and circumstances leading to the crime;