However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

(e).

1. On April 16, 2016, at around 01:20, the Defendant: (a) recommended a police officer G police box belonging to the Seoul Eastern Police Station F Station, who called the Defendant, to take the Defendant out of the main shop and return to the Republic of Korea after having been reported to 112 by the victim E, who was on the first floor of D hotel in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, at around 01:20, the Defendant obstructed the Defendant’s performance of official duties, thereby interfering with the legitimate performance of duties concerning the handling of reporting duties and the maintenance of public order and security.

2. Definating;

A. At around 00:10 on April 16, 2016, the Defendant publicly insultingd the victim by “the victim’s victim’s ran tavern operated by the victim E on the first floor of D hotel located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, for the reason that the victim H, a police box affiliated with the police box belonging to the Dongdaemun-gu Police Station, who was called one-lane, was prevented from committing himself/herself.”

B. The defendant Ha received the money from the president of Nice, and received the money from the victim Ha even after the defendant Ha went out of the main place, on the recommendation of the police officers dispatched to the two-lanes upon receipt of the 112 report at the time and place as mentioned in the above 1.

In a hearing, the victim publicly insultingd the victim by “the fluort fluor and fluort fluor.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of a witness I;

1. Each statement of the witness H, G and E in the third public trial records;

1. Some of the statements made by the police in relation to E;

1. Application of H’s Acts and subordinate statutes on the complaint;

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of public duties), Article 311 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively, with prison labor;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act under the suspended sentence is that it is not good for the defendant to take a bath or assault against police officers who perform official duties (in the case of interference with the execution of official duties of this case, the police officers at the time of interference).