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

At around 18:50 on May 13, 2015, the Defendant, “C convenience store” located in the Daegu-gu Office B, Daegu-gu, and “E is seriously a woman,” upon receiving 112 report, confirmed the Defendant’s report to the Defendant’s wife, and solicited the Defendant to return home, the Defendant, without any justifiable reason, expressed the Defendant’s desire to read “Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YY YY YY YY Y YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY Y YY YY YY YY YY ACT Y YY YYYYYY YY YY YY YY

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to police statements of E, F and G;

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime. Article 136 (Selection of Imprisonment or Imprisonment);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (i.e., confession, reflectivity, the same kind of force, and the fact that there has been no record of severe punishment in addition to the fine);

1. Social service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;