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

On December 17, 2014, at around 22:55, the Defendant was aware of the traffic accident situation where D, who was called up on 5:5 p.m. 5 p.m. from the Busan Jin-gu, Busan C District of the Busan Jin-gu, which was called up on 5:0 p.m. on 17, 2014. The Defendant expressed that D’s “the police officer has been a police officer due to what is not a Chewing f.m.” The Defendant expressed that D’s “the police officer has been a police officer due to what is g.e., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (field situations, etc.);

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as the “justifiable circumstances”) of the suspended sentence;

1. The sentencing criteria [Scope of Recommendation] The basic area (referring to six months to one year and four months) of the obstruction of performance of official duties; and

2. In addition to being sentenced to a fine of KRW 3 million due to an injury during the last one to two years, the criminal record of a fine for this type of crime is more than one time, even though the Defendant had committed a crime under the influence of the sentence.

However, the punishment shall be determined in consideration of all the circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant seriously reflects, that there is a dependent on the defendant, that there is clear social relation with the defendant, that there is no criminal record exceeding the fine of the defendant, the age, character and conduct of the defendant, and environment.