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

On September 22, 2014, at around 22:25, the Defendant reported 112 that he interfered with D’s 119 structure used by the Defendant at the front of the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Guro Police Station Emb, and sent back to the site from F of the police box belonging to the Guro Police Station Emba, “I am home, so I am under the influence of alcohol,” “I am under the influence of alcohol, I am under the influence of alcohol, am under the influence of alcohol, and am under the influence of alcohol.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of public duties of police officers on the maintenance of public peace and order.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to police statements made to F and G;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on probation and community service order;

1. The scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines [the scope of the punishment for the obstruction of performance of official duties]. The punishment for the obstruction of official duties shall be limited to the punishment for the obstruction of official duties. The punishment for the obstruction of official duties shall be limited to six months to one year;

2. In order to establish the legal order of the country where the sentence of punishment was determined and eradicate the light of the public authority, there is a great need to punish the Defendant for the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties in this case, in light of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime or the content thereof, the nature of the crime is inferior, and the circumstances after the crime are not good.

On the other hand, there are favorable circumstances such as the fact that the defendant made a confession of the crime of this case and reflects the mistake, that the defendant appears to have committed the crime of this case by contingency, that the degree of violence by the defendant does not seem to be serious, and that the defendant has no record of punishment for the same crime.

In addition, the above circumstances and the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, background, means and result of the crime, circumstances after the crime, and attitude in this court.