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

1. Around 00:50 on December 24, 2013, the Defendant injured the victim B (the 52-year-old) who was a taxi engineer before Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 559, and the victim’s bucks for riding, and the victim’s bucks were 3,4 times in drinking, and the bucks were bucks were fucked to the 3,4 times in drinking, and the 3,4 times in drinking, and the 3,4 times in drinking, and the bucks were inflicted on the victim for approximately two weeks in treating the bucks.

2. On December 24, 2013, at around 01:10 on December 24, 2013, the Defendant: (a) asked questions about the instant case by the police officer affiliated with the Mapo Police Station D Zone D located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government; (b) resisted the instant case, the Defendant flabed the bridge of the said E, with a bad hand, and assaulted several times.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of duties by police officers related to criminal investigation as above.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of police statement concerning E and B;

1. Video-recording images of DNA CCTV;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a medical certificate;

1. Relevant Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the grounds that the defendant is seriously against the defendant,

1. The defense counsel's assertion on the defense counsel under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act asserts that the defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disorder under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime in this case. Thus, according to the above evidence, the defendant's assertion cannot be accepted since it is recognized that he had a certain degree of alcohol at the time of the crime in this case, but it does not seem that the defendant had a certain degree of alcohol but did not have the ability to discern things,