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

1. On May 5, 2017, at around 01:50, the Defendant: (a) obstructed the victim’s main shop operation by force; (b) in the main shop operated by the victim C in Gumi-si B, the Defendant: (c) obstructed the victim’s main shop operation by force by avoiding a small amount of disturbance for about 10 minutes; (d) neglecting the victim’s breath while under the influence of alcohol; and (e) destroying the victim’s breath with breath, and destroying the victim’s breath, and then leaving the floor.

2. On May 5, 201, at the main point indicated in paragraph 1 around 02:01 on May 5, 201, the Defendant: (a) committed assault, such as assaulting the instant item E three times by hand, when the Defendant was a police officer belonging to the former police station D police station, who was dispatched after receiving a report of 112 while avoiding disturbance as described in paragraph 1; and (b) when he was removed from E, who was a police officer belonging to the former police station D police station.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers on the investigation of crimes and the maintenance of order.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement protocol against C and E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report internal investigation (Attachment of a photo of a police officer who commits assault related to obstruction of the performance of official duties to a police officer), internal investigation report (Attachment of a report related to obstruction of the duties of a suspected suspect), internal investigation report (Attachment of a report related to interference with the duties of a suspected suspect), and internal investigation report (Attachment of a report on May 4, 2017 to a police officer who works for a two team team on May 5, 2017);

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business), Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with the performance of public duties) and the choice of imprisonment for each crime;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order;

1. Application of the sentencing criteria;

(a) Interference with the performance of official duties (the scope of recommendations) and interference with the performance of official duties (the scope of punishment) and the basic area (the period from June to June) (the period from January to June) (the person without any special sentencing)

(b) No. 1 category (Interference with Business) in the mitigation area (one month to eight months) (special mitigation factors) in the scope of interference with business affairs [the scope of recommended punishment] and no penalty shall be imposed;

C. From six months to six months of the application standards for multiple crimes.