However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

The defendant was approved in relation to the establishment of a factory in C viewing as the person in charge of B technology, but the Corporation did not proceed with C viewing and was present at the hearing after receiving the notice of cancellation of factory establishment from C viewing, and in this regard, E was an attorney-at-law who is a local administrative assistant working in C viewing Planning and Budget Office and was conducting a hearing on behalf of C viewing.

1. On August 20, 2015, at the conference room of CView CCTV Control Center located in D around 10:10, the Defendant: (a) continued to discuss only his claim that the revocation of the factory was unfair during the process of the hearing; and (b) proposed that E would stop from holding the hearing; (c) and (d) threatened E with “I will not come to personally in terms of “Innnnnn't, In't see, In't see, In't see, In't see, In't see, In't see, In't see, and In't hold the hearing any further.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the progress of a hearing related to local administrative public officials.

2. The Defendant made a public insult of the victim E by speaking to the victim E as “the victim must grow up with a shot light, a young attorney-at-law shot light, and this shot light,” when and at the time, at the place specified in the foregoing paragraph 1.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement No. 1 and No. 2 made by the police against E (Statement that he/she has suffered the same damage as the statement in the judgment);

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to recording each police statement protocol against H and G (a statement that the defendant expressed his/her will to the victim);

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of public duties), Article 311 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor, respectively;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Reasons for sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Code of the Suspension of Execution [the scope of the recommended sentence] are set forth in Category 1 (Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties/ Compellion of Duties).