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

1. On March 18, 2017, at around 03:00, the Defendant: (a) committed the act as if the Defendant would pay the normal drinking value in spite of the absence of an intent or ability to pay the drinking value, etc. due to the lack of any money in water; and (b) ordered 2,000 won of the market value to the Defendant.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received the alcohol equivalent to 26,00 won from the injured party, thereby deceiving the victim.

2. Around 04:50 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) obstructed the performance of official duties, after receiving a report from 112, that the Defendant did not pay the drinking value at the place specified in the foregoing paragraph (1) above; (b) assaulted the said G by saying, “I see that 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, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, and I am, I am, I am, I am, I am.”

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to D or G;

1. Application of simplified receipts, employment-related statutes;

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of fraud), Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties) and the choice of imprisonment, respectively, for the crime;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the fact that he/she had been subjected to punishment once a suspended sentence due to interference with the performance of the same official duties, violence, and the force of punishment twice a fine, and the fact that he/she did not agree with the defrauded, and that he/she did not appear properly at the instant trial, shall be considered as an unfavorable circumstance, such as the Defendant’s failure to appear at the instant trial.

On the other hand, however,