2.Provided, That the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive;

On January 1, 2015, at the front of D convenience point in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, about 00:40, the Defendant: (a) expressed a disturbance to his employees on the ground that the immediately preceding tobacco was not sold at the convenience store; (b) expressed a 112 patrol staff member of the Daegu-dong Police Station Edistrict, who was on the duty of 112 patrol, was able to take the her luminous light, and her boom and move the her boom, who was in the 112 patrol; and (c) expressed the desire to “I am waiting for the fat of the fat of the convenience store now at this time,” and (d) again, the Defendant brought the Defendant’s hand back from the patrol to the left hand.

As a result, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning patrol duty of police officer F.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 136 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines [the scope of the recommended sentence] shall be the basic area (six months to one year and four months) of the obstruction of performance of official duties (the scope of the recommended sentence];

2. Consideration - The circumstances in which the defendant's age, character, conduct, health conditions, home environment, motive, means, results, and other circumstances after the commission of the crime are considered, without any previous conviction or heavier punishment, without delay, class 2, family support liability, and other various sentencing conditions specified in the records of this case.