However, each of the above punishments shall be executed for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. At around 10:03 on September 18, 2014, Defendant A: (a) committed assault against Defendant A, on the ground that there is no vehicle in the state of drinking, the traffic order in the Seoul Jung-gu Office and the parking control crew D (63 years of age) and E (60 years of age) belonging to the Seoul Jung-gu Office of Traffic Regulation at the time; (b) Defendant D expressed his desire to “erost, Chewing,” and expressed his body on several occasions on the part of the ship, and threatened the said E, as if he was fluor, of a fluor, the body of the vehicle in the manner of drinking, on the ground that there is no vehicle in the state of drinking.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning parking regulation by the Jung-gu Office Parking Control Board.

2. At the same time and place as indicated in the above paragraph 1.1, the Defendant: (a) obstructed the parking control duty as seen above and called out by A upon receiving a 112 report; (b) was arrested as a flagrant offender from G and H under the suspicion of obstruction of performance of official duties; (c) the Defendant displayed the police officer G’s exclusion from his own name, thereby threatening the police officer “to appoint an attorney-at-law”, and assaulting the police officer, such as preventing the police officer from facing the defect by carrying A’s body by carrying on the police; and (d) cutting off the h’s flaps.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on 112 reports and crime control.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. Each police protocol of statement about D, E, and G;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The sentence shall be determined as per the disposition, in consideration of the fact that there is no previous conviction for the same kind of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, the crime of this case is committed in a contingency under the influence of alcohol, and the confession of each crime of this case and its depth is against it