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.

Around 03:50 on March 12, 2017, the Defendant reported 112 the Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Seoul), stating that “I will do harm.” On the front side of the parking lot, the Defendant reported 112, and that “I lent a mobile phone to another person, but the person reported. I reported.” The E and F brought the knife knife (Evidence No. 1) of the industrial knife, which is a dangerous object prior to the vehicle in Geumcheon-gu, Seoul, Seoul, to “I am off a mobile phone to another person,” and then threatened E and F with knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, and knife, knife, knife, knife, etc. to the above E and F.

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous objects and interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the protection of police officers' lives and bodies.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Police statements made to E and F;

1. One metre of an industrial knife (No. 1);

1. Application of video Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 144 (1) and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes (the punishment imposed on a person who has committed a crime committed a crime with heavier punishment for obstructing the performance of special official duties in relation to E);

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Social Service Order Criminal Act (the crime of obstructing the performance of each of the special duties in this case is in a mutually competitive relationship, and the sentencing guidelines do not provide a separate handling method for the ordinary concurrent crimes, but it is necessary to refer the sentencing guidelines to the ordinary concurrent crimes. Thus, the sentencing guidelines for the crime of obstructing the performance of special duties in this case are examined with reference to the heavier criteria for the crime of obstructing the performance of public duties in this case)

1. The scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing criteria (the scope of the recommended punishment) shall interfere with the execution of official duties;