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.

1. On June 8, 2016, around 22:00, the Defendant: (a) expressed the attitude to pay the drinking value at the “E” main point operated by the victim D located in Kimhae-si; and (b) ordered alcohol and alcohol.

However, as above, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to pay the price even if he orders the alcohol and the alcohol.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, was provided with a total amount of KRW 2.70,00,00 in the market price of two weeks, such as sick and Ansan, in the same place.

2. On June 8, 2016, at around 23:55, the Defendant obstructed the police officer’s legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of reporting duties 112 by assaulting the police officer, i.e., keeping the Defendant’s face and making him/her look back to his/her country, when the police officer F, who was dispatched to the scene after receiving a report from 112 that the Defendant did not pay his/her drinking value, recommended the Defendant to pay his/her drinking value and return home.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of the defendant in the third public trial records;

1. Each police statement made to D or F;

1. Application of major receipt Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of fraud), Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties) and the choice of imprisonment, respectively, for the crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing as set forth below) lies in the Defendant’s depth and reflects his mistake, and there are some circumstances that may be somewhat taken into account the motive and circumstances leading to each of the instant crimes.

On the other hand, the defendant did not agree with the victims until now, the defendant has been punished for violent crimes or fraud even before, and the obstruction of the execution of official duties is the function of the state's legal order, such as nullifying the legitimate exercise of public authority.