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

On November 5, 2014, around 23:33, the Defendant, who was locked in front of the C cafeteria located in the Hanam-si B, was urged to return home from E at the border belonging to the Hanam Police Station D District Unit of the Hanam Police Station that was called out after receiving a report, and told the Defendant to “I am out and grow up. . d. d. h. h. h. h. h. h. h. h. h. h. h. h. h. h. h. h. h. h. the Defendant obstructed the police officer E’s legitimate execution

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Evidentiary materials taken at the time of dispatch;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (the counter-investigation of witnesses);

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 136 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act does not relax the nature of the crime of this case, which prevents the performance of official duties by assaulting a police officer, and the defendant has been punished several times for violent crimes, but the defendant is committed at the time of committing the crime, and the defendant is divided and is not committed again, the punishment shall be determined as ordered in consideration of the fact that the defendant does not commit such crime again.