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

On November 8, 2014, at around 13:14, 2014, the Defendant received a report from the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C (hereinafter referred to as the “Seocho Police Station Dtation”) and sent to the site, and without any justifiable reason, “Wee, frieri” from a police officer affiliated with the Seoul Seocho Police Station Dtation.

K. We need to take a bath, such as “I am this dog,” and assault the E’s breath, scam, scam, and the chest once, and interfere with the performance of legitimate duties by a police officer with respect to the arrest of a flagrant offender and suppression of an offense, such as: (a) the process of reporting 112; (b) the process of arresting the Defendant as a flagrant offender in the obstruction of performance of official duties; and (c) the process of sending the Defendant at the site by pushing F with the defective F to arrest the Defendant as a flagrant offender in the obstruction of performance of official duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. The Defendant asserts to the effect that, at the time of the instant crime, he/she was in a state of heart loss or mental disability by stating that he/she had no memory under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime.

According to the records, even though the defendant was found to have drinking at the time of committing the crime, he did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions.

It does not seem to be in a state or weak.

The argument of mental disorder shall not be accepted.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime concerned;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the ordinary concurrent crimes (a punishment imposed for the crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties against heavier F);

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. The reason for the sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended sentence [the scope of recommending punishment] is the case where the basic area (six months of imprisonment or one year and four months of imprisonment), the basic area (special mitigation) (special mitigation) of the obstruction of performance of official duties, and the degree of violence, intimidation, and deceptive scheme is minor, and where there are many public officials who suffered damage (one type) (one type of sentence) / [the decision on the suspended sentence] Defendant’s use of assault against multiple police officers.