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.

On April 11, 2016, the Defendant: (a) within D located in Seojin-gu, Seojin-gu; (b) around 02:30 on April 11, 2016; and (c) during the process of hearing a statement about the details of the report by the relevant slope F, etc., of the previous police station Epiced by the Defendant after receiving a report of 112 that there is a vision related to the drinking value.

“Abundance”, “F made a motion picture using a mobile phone,” and “Choe de gue, p.s.e., abundance;

Police Dol Dol

While continuing the bath theory by the word "I am", the driver laid down the F's left part once with his hand and lowered the mobile phone used by F to the ground.

Accordingly, F et al. arrested the defendant as a current offender and takes it out of the main place, and whether the defendant is a police officer of the dogbs.

In doing so, “F et al. at one time while taking a bath, thereby hindering the legitimate execution of duties concerning the prevention of crimes and the maintenance of order by police officers.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. Each police statement concerning G and F;

1. A H statement;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes of each internal investigation and investigation report;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of punishment for the crime;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order [Sentencing Criteria] [Scope of Recommendation] The basic area (from June to April) of the type 1 (Interference with the performance of official duties and coercion of duties) [Judgment of sentence] [Judgment of sentence] 6 months of imprisonment, suspension of execution 2 years (the Defendant’s act of assaulting police officers who are public officials and obstructing the performance of official duties is not easy, and the Defendant has already been punished by a fine of five previous years including the fact that he has already been punished by a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, but the Defendant is against the duty of the Defendant and the amount of money deposited for public officials is considered as a favorable sentencing factor.

In addition, the defendant's age, sex, and this case.