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

1. On January 27, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 03:30 on January 27, 2017, while drinking alcohol in the “D” singing box operated by the victim C, located in Busan, Busan, the Defendant: (b) found his/her daily performance to the fluor and his/her employees, and (c) fluorily fluorly fluorly fluord his/her daily performance on the floor; and (d) fluorly fluored fluor for approximately 20 minutes, such as fluoring his/her daily performance to his/her employees by sound.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the victim's property and interfered with the main operation by force.

2. Around 03:50 on January 27, 2017, the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties: (a) was asked to ask questions about the circumstances of the instant case from the BF affiliated with the Busan Police Station E District; and (b) was shaking the arms, and the process F confirmed the intent to punish the damage of property, etc. from the main agent of the said main agent; (c) took a photograph of the brightnessr, etc., carried the phone with the phone to carry the phone, and then down the biff’s hand onto the floor by cutting the biff’s hand, and then harming the biff’s hand, and walked the portable phone due to a defect in the biff’s photograph.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the investigation of police officers' crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement with respect to C and F;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation and a written estimate for investigation;

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 314(1), 366, and 136(1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of criminal facts;

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. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is deemed to obstruct the principal duties of the victim and obstruct the performance of official duties by assaulting a police officer dispatched to the scene by neglecting his/her behavior, such as destroying the victim's property and obsing the victim's property, etc. as above, and the criminal liability is not minor.

(b).