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

At around 03:10 on May 2, 2014, the Defendant reported that the Defendant was a shoter in front of the instant 112-ro 17-ro 2-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seocho-gu, Seoul, with the report of 112 in front of the said singing room, and used the shot C and sloping D belonging to the Seodaemun-gu, Police Station B police box called “I am with the nightner,” but the Defendant refused to see that “I am in a more fashion, I am in our math, I am.” on the part of the Defendant, “I am out, I am, I am, I am in a more fashion, I am in a hand, and am scambling the said D’s bridge which continued to restrain.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers on the prevention of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of each police protocol of statement to C and D

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime concerned;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of the Social Service Order and Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc. [Scope of Recommendation] There is no basic area (6 to 1 year and 4 months) of the obstruction of performance of official duties [decision of sentence] [Judgment of sentence] of the Defendant’s crime of this case where the Defendant obstructed the police officer’s performance of official duties, but there is no record of criminal punishment, but there is no record of criminal punishment for the Defendant, the Defendant is in depth of his mistake, and the punishment is imposed as ordered in consideration of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc.