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

On September 19, 2016, at around 21:15, the Defendant: “D User Office” located in Daegu Dong-gu C and 2, Daegu Dong-gu, and the second floor; (b) obstructed the Defendant from preparing a written statement by reporting that the Defendant was receiving a written statement from the H of the said user’s workplace, the Daegu Dong-dong Police Station E-gu, which controlled juvenile harmful establishments; and (c) obstructed the said G from receiving the written statement from the said G; (d) was subject to control by the said G; and (e) was subject to control by the said G; and (e) was expressed to the said G as “the police officer’s bome, E-gu, the police officer’s fome, the bitome, and the bitle of the said G at one time due to drinking.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers on the control and investigation of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness G and F;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Application of the CDA-1 statute

1. Relevant Article 136 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act [the scope of the recommended sentence] There is no person [the person subject to special sentencing] in the basic area (from June to one year and six months) (the person subject to special sentencing] [the decision of sentencing] [the decision of sentence], taking into account the following circumstances, such as the age, sex, criminal conduct, family relationship, home environment, motive and means of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., as indicated in the records of this case, the sentence is determined as per the disposition.

D. Unfavorable circumstances: The defendant's use of violence against a police officer who is performing legitimate official duties, and his/her liability for such crime is not against the law.

The degree of damage suffered by the damaged police officer is not severe.

There is no criminal history exceeding a fine for the accused.