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

On October 27, 2016, when the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol from D (34) police officers belonging to C, while getting on and returning a string vehicle driven by his wife B at the road located in 1011 on the 1011-ro, the Defendant expressed that the Defendant would refuse to take a cell phone in the influence of alcohol. On October 27, 2016, the Defendant expressed that the said D would be subject to the influence of alcohol, and that the said D would be subject to the influence of alcohol, and that the said D would take a cell phone in order to take it into the cell phone, the Defendant expressed that “Y Ha, Sing Ma, Sing Ma, Sing Ma, Sing Ma Ma, Sing Roh Ro,” and expressed that the left part of the said D’s face at the right floor at one time.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties by police officers related to criminal investigation.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statements made to D;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act under Article 62(1) of the suspended sentence requires a strict punishment as an act that disregards public authority by a defendant who assaults a police officer without any special reason under the influence of alcohol.

However, the defendant's damage caused by the crime of this case is not relatively significant, the defendant is the first offender of the same kind, there is no criminal record exceeding the fine, and the defendant is against the law.

In addition, the sentencing conditions prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the age, sex, etc. of the accused, shall be determined as per the order.