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

Around 02:20 on September 2, 2018, the Defendant was under dispute with a taxi engineer and a taxi fare on the front side of the Seo-gu Daejeon District B, Daejeon. On September 2, 2018, the Defendant paid a taxi fee to a taxi engineer upon the recommendation of a police officer belonging to the Daejeon Police Station C District, who was called at the site after receiving a 112 report, and a police officer of the Daejeon Police Station C District, who was called at the site. On the ground that the police officer was only a letter of a taxi engineer and did not enter the Defendant’s horse, the Defendant obstructed the police officer from driving the F patrol vehicle, booming the above patrol vehicle, booming the driver, booming the Defendant, and obstructed the progress of the patrol vehicle by getting D to sit in the front of the bnd unit.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers on the site.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (scambling images);

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor concerning the crime;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (see, e.g., Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (see, e., Supreme Court Decision 200

1. It is so decided as per Disposition on the grounds of Article 62-2 or more of the Criminal Act;