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

On August 31, 2015, at around 21:13, the Defendant reported 112 to show obscene materials in the C telephone room located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the police officers belonging to the D District Police Station in Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, and dispatched upon receiving the said report, voluntarily operated the Defendant in order to control the above business, and hear the Defendant’s statement.

On August 31, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 21:52, at the D District District District of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul District Police Station located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the police officer F, who belongs to the said District, tried to prepare the Defendant’s written statement, asked the Defendant for his occupation; (b) and (c) the Defendant’s face of the said police officer at one time, thereby interfering with the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties concerning criminal investigation, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the police protocol of statement to F;

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

1. The reason for the sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended sentence [Scope of Recommendation] Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Performance of Official Duties (Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution) has no basic area (Article 6-1 and 4 months) (Article 6-1 of the Act on the Suspension of Performance of Official Duties) (Article 1 of the Act on the Suspension of Performance of Official Duties) (Article 62 of the Decision on the Punishment of Sentence] (Article 2(1) of the Act on the Promotion of Execution of Official Duties) (Article 1