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

Around 18:00 on July 10, 2015, the Defendant, who was in urterology at the front of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, and was under patroled from a slope D belonging to the Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu Police Station C police box, and subsequently, the Defendant expressed that the Defendant “I ambied son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of suspect old urology photographs and victim urology Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

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

1. The reason for the sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on Probation and Social Service Order [Scope of Recommendation] There is no basic area of obstruction of performance of official duties (6 to 1 year and 4 months) [decision of sentence] [Determination of sentence] In light of the circumstance leading to the crime of this case, the degree of damage, and the fact that the defendant's records of punishment for violent crimes including obstruction of performance of official duties are nine times, etc., it shall be deemed that the criminal liability is heavy. However, the defendant recognizes and reflects the crime, and other various sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment shall be determined as ordered within the scope of recommendation punishment.