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

On January 10, 2016, the Defendant requested on January 10, 2016, C, a de facto marriage spouse in the Defendant’s house located in Jeju-si, to open the door door by changing the key of the house and the door door at the house. The Defendant requested 112 to open the slope E belonging to the Jeju-dong Police Station D District Unit in the Jeju-dong Police Station, which was called after receiving 112 a report.

Sheaking to this Chewing farz. .... Sheet F to stop the chest and chin of a slope E by hand; . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ....

Where he/she reaches the age, Doz.

Along with a large number of times, hexa, hexa, etc.

“In doing so, the balth of F with left hand was shakened.”

As a result, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officials on the maintenance of public order.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to E, F, and C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (fields of the case and the counter-investigation of people adjacent thereto);

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

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

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the conditions favorable to the following reasons for sentencing)

1. The scope of the recommended punishment on the sentencing criteria [the scope of the recommended punishment] and the basic area (six months to one year and four months) (the prevention of interference with the performance of official duties and the coercion of official duties) shall be limited to the category 1 (the prevention of interference with the performance of official duties).

2. Determination of sentence: (a) considering the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, background and consequence leading to the instant crime, means and consequence, circumstances after the instant crime, and other various conditions of sentencing as shown in the pleadings of the instant case; (b) considering the following circumstances, the Defendant was exempted from the scope of the recommended sentence on the sentencing guidelines; and (c) determined the sentence as ordered by the Daejeon District Court on November 12, 2012; (d) despite the fact that the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 3 million due to interference with the execution of official duties at the Daejeon District Court on November 12, 2012, the instant crime was committed.