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

On June 28, 2016, at around 02:10 on the front of the C cafeteria located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul, Seoul around 02:0 on June 28, 2016, the Defendant expressed that he would be asked to pay the taxi fee by police officers E, etc. belonging to the Eunpyeong Police Station D District, who received a report from the Defendant that the Defendant would not pay the taxi fee due to a drunk, and that he would be asked to pay the taxi fee by the police officers E, etc. belonging to the Pyeongtaek Police Station D District, and that he would be asked to “I will see that I will see, I will see, I will see, I will see, I will see, I will see, I will see, I will see, I will see.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the prevention of crimes and criminal investigations by police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of F’s written Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

2. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following sentencing shall be considered as favorable circumstances, etc. in consideration of the importance of sentencing):

3. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on the Observation, etc. of Protection, etc. of Social Service Orders.

1. The sentencing guidelines for sentencing: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than six months, but not more than one year and four months (the scope of a recommendation) shall interfere with the performance of public duties, and the basic area (the interference with the performance of public duties and the coercion of duties) (the period from June to April) of the basic area (the period from June to April) is nonexistent;

1. Unfavorable circumstances: The crime of this case is assessed against a police officer who wears a uniform several times as drinking, and the nature of the crime is poor;

1. favorable circumstances: Taking into account all kinds of sentencing conditions prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc. of the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant commits a mistake, the fact that the police officer committed a contingent crime under the influence of alcohol, the fact that the police officer did not have any injury, and the fact that he was not subject to criminal punishment;