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

At around 17:30 on September 26, 2013, the Defendant reported that he did not pay the drinking value or did not pay it at the “Ccafeteria” located in the Suwon-gu, Suwon-si B, and recommended him to return home as the circumstances in which he belonged to the D District would have been calculated, refused to comply with this, and opened the entrance, and then opened the door to the entrance, and then threatened E as if he would have sprinked two drinkings, sprinked, sprinked, and sponsed, and threatened E, “I will not have any police sprinked.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning 112 reporting processing duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol against the accused and F;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. A written statement of the G production;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

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. When considering the risk of obstruction of performance of official duties, it is necessary to strictly punish the defendant, taking into account the fact that the defendant for the reason of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of probation and community service order committed the crime without any reflection of the past record of punishment of violence including the same kind of crime.

However, the sentencing conditions in this case, including the confession of the defendant, the fact that the situation of the defendant is relatively small, and the motive, means and result of the crime in this case, the circumstances after the crime in this case, the age, character and conduct of the defendant, and family environment, shall be determined in full view of all the sentencing conditions in this case.