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

At around 18:00 on September 27, 2014, the Defendant: (a) received a report from the driver, who was passing through the front packaging end of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B, and received the report, and was called for identification by the slope D belonging to the Seoul Yeongdeungpo Police Station C District of Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul.

Accordingly, the Defendant expressed to the above D that “Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YY Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the arrest of police officers in the act of committing a crime.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the police statement law to D;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act ( normal consideration in favor of the accused among the reasons for sentencing following the suspended sentence);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc., even though the defendant had several records of punishment for the same kind of crime, the crime of this case is deemed to be committed again, but the nature of the crime is not good, but the degree of violence is relatively minor, the degree of violence is relatively minor, the defendant's age, character and behavior, family environment, and all other conditions of sentencing including the defendant's age, character and behavior, family environment, etc.,