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

1. At around 20:50 on September 19, 2014, the Defendant: (a) visited with a taxi engineer at the cost of taxi charges, and was solicited by the police officer affiliated with the said police box to pay taxi charges and return home at the expense of the taxi charges; (b) “I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I do not refuse to go home.” The Defendant committed assault, such as sending a disturbance for about 1 hour and 30 minutes, and driving D’s boat at hand.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the proper execution of public duties by police officers and other public peace and maintenance of order.

2. The Defendant expressed the victim E, a police officer affiliated with the police box at the time and place specified in the above paragraph (1) above, for about 30 minutes, such as “I ambling, scars, and scars were boomed accordingly,” and publicly insulting the victim during the hearing of the taxi engineer, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to D and E;

1. Application of investigative reports (report on telephone conversations between complainants)-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 311 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment for the crime

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

3. The reason for the sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution [the scope of recommendation] The reason for the sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act / [the scope of the punishment of obstruction of performance of official duties] is that there is a need for strict punishment of the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties and the crime of insult against police officers in order to establish the legal order of the State and eradicate the light of the public authority.

However, it is reasonable to consider the fact that the defendant's mistake is recognized and reflected, and that there is no criminal record exceeding the fine, etc. in favor of him.