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

1. On October 26, 2014, at around 20:25, the Defendant was demanded from the victim that C, who was under the influence of alcohol in the second floor office of the Diplomatic Association where C, a security guard, was in the middle-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, move to the above church while getting out of the disturbance.

However, the defendant does not respond to it and receives a report from the victim on the same day on the same day at around 20:53, and does not leave the victim's place until the police officer reaches the place, without justifiable reasons.

The Gu refused to comply with the Gu.

2. The Defendant expressed, at the above date, at the above time and place of the obstruction of performance of official duties, the police officer F, who was a police officer belonging to the Seoul Southern Police Station E District Unit, who received the said victim’s above 112 report and received the said victim’s request from G, and expressed, “P, in accordance with the intention of the driver, I am knick,” and notified the said F, “I may demand the second defendant to leave, and arrest him as an flagrant offender if I do not comply with the request for withdrawal, I will be able to arrest him in the act of committing the crime,” and the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of the duties of the police officer who walked once with knene of the said G, knne, and interfered with the execution of the duties of handling the 112 report by the police officer.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to F and C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (Evidence Nos. 5 and 7);

1. Articles 319 (2) and (1) and 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. According to C’s statement and telephone investigation report on H that the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, did not comply with C’s request to leave even though the Defendant entered Diplomatic Conference. According to C’s statement and telephone investigation report on H, as at the time of the instant case, C and H got sound from the second floor’s office, thereby getting off C and H to the first floor.