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

At around 23:00 on July 17, 2014, the Defendant reported to 112, and reported to 112, and confirmed CCTV in the service office, along with C belonging to the Seoul Western Police Station B District, dispatched to the site.

In that place, the Defendant stated that the CCTV was not taken by himself, and accordingly, stated that “the police officer and the service personnel destroyed evidence” was “the Defendant destroyed the evidence,” and assaulted by his hand, such as shacking his shoulder, shacking the shoulder, thereby hindering the Defendant’s legitimate execution of duties concerning the public security and maintenance of order of police officials.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of C or D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of E;

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (i.e., taking into account all the circumstances, such as the first offender, the depth of his/her mistake, and the reflection of his/her mistake) [Scope of recommending punishment] where the degree of violence, intimidation, and deceptive scheme (special mitigation) is insignificant in the area of mitigation (i.e., obstruction of performance of official duties/performance of official duties).