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

On September 23, 2015, at around 21:30, the Defendant: (a) reported on the traffic island located in front of Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul; (b) and (c) attempted to cause a locked by a slope E belonging to the Seoul District Police Station D Zone D, Seoul, which was called the “Yeng F,” and (d) to the said E, etc., “I am feasia, left the right side of the above E” and ambling the face of the above E two times as head, and ambling the above E’s chest on two occasions; and (b) the said F’s chest face and face side were sent one time each to interfere with the legitimate protection of the life and body of the people of the above E, F, and the justifiable execution of duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each police statement to F and E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the investigation report;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on Probation;

1. The scope of applicable sentences by law: one month to five years; and

2. Application of the sentencing guidelines (amended by July 1, 2015) (the scope of recommending punishment) (the scope of punishment for the obstruction of performance of official duties) to the basic area (six months to one year and four months) of the obstruction of performance of official duties (the person who has been specially punished).

3. The sentence of imprisonment is serious in that the Defendant had been sentenced to a fine or a punishment for suspended execution due to the same obstruction of performance of official duties, even though there were many other records of punishment due to violence, which led to the instant crime, and that the nature of the crime is serious in that the Defendant’s attempt to rescue the Defendant and the first respond to a non-discriminatory violence against the police officers and first responders. However, while the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol due to the proof of alcohol existence, it is not intentionally induced by the Defendant, nor intentionally induced by the Defendant, and the Defendant himself does not repeat by treating the alcohol problem and treating it in the future.