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

At around 23:20 on May 6, 2014, the Defendant: (a) discovered the Defendant who was franchising a shot bar in front of Mapo-gu Seoul, with a report of 112, and was called up, and discovered the Defendant who was franchising a shot bar (25 cm, 35 cm, Ga 25 cm, Ga 35 cm) and prevented the Defendant from entering the shot, and thereby interfered with the Defendant’s legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of the police officer’s 112 report when considering the face of the said D one time.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 136 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. The reason for the sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Code of the Suspension of Execution [the scope of recommendation] The reason for the sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Code / [the scope of punishment for the obstruction of performance of official duties] There is no basic area (6 to 1 year and 4 months) [the person who has a special appearance] [the decision of sentence] / The defendant needs to be strictly punished in that it interferes with police officers' legitimate performance of duties by exercising violence against police officers. However, although the defendant recognized his mistake and is divided, the defendant has no record of other criminal punishment except for a fine once, and the defendant has no record of other criminal punishment except for a fine, and the defendant's age, character and behavior, and environment are considered in the argument of this case