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

At around 05:15 on July 16, 2014, the Defendant, while drinking alcohol in front of the “D” convenience store, obstructed the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties regarding handling the 112 report by assaulting the Defendant, such as using a simple table and plastic box in front of the said place. The Defendant, upon receipt of the report, she sent to the E Zone of the Ansan Police Station E zone, she she ought to read the Defendant, she was her horse, the said F, and she was flick, she was flick, and this she was flick, she was flick.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Application of the G’s written Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act is that the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties of the State is a crime that undermines the function of the State by nullifying the legitimate exercise of public authority, and thus, the criminal liability of the defendant is grave, the defendant has a record of criminal punishment several times, and the defendant has a record of criminal punishment twice due to the same mistake.

However, in light of the fact that the Defendant recognized the facts charged in the instant case and reflected his mistake, the degree of obstruction of performance of official duties is somewhat minor, and other circumstances indicated in the records, such as criminal records, age, character and conduct, family environment, etc., the punishment shall be determined as ordered within the scope of the sentencing guidelines (one month of imprisonment or eight months of imprisonment, reduction area).