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

On November 10, 2016, at around 05:00, the Defendant: (a) reported that he was assaulted at “C party hall” located in Gangdong-gu Seoul, Seoul; (b) reported that he was assaulted at the site; and (c) reported that E, a police officer affiliated with the Gangwon-gu Police Station D branch of the Police Station, dispatched to the site, asked the Defendant F, who was the first executive officer of the Defendant, questioning about the reported details; and (d) expressed the Defendant’s desire to read “Scar son, who was influent,” and assaulted the e-mail.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of reported cases and the control of crimes by police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of police statement protocol to E;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor as a matter of choice (a police officer who was in the course of performing his/her official duties by using his/her uniform and thus the nature of the crime is not good);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point in which a depth is divided) of the suspended execution;