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

At around 21:15 on October 17, 2016, the Defendant: (a) stated in Seogu-gu, Seogu, Seo-gu, that “Neggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on criminal investigation and public security affairs.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of E and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the place of work in the D District;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (i.e., confession, reflective fact, assault against police officers one time, and the fact that there is no other criminal record except for a fine imposed on one time due to occupational injury or injury);

1. Social service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;