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 March 3, 2017, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol in the vicinity of the Socheon Fire Station, and demanded B to change the “D store” through “D store,” which was under the influence of alcohol in the vicinity of the Socheon Fire Station, and then B was able to hear the fact that B was in the form of a mixed standard and went through the E zone while driving the cab.

At around 01:50 on March 3, 2017, the Defendant, at F, arrived at the E District of the Han River Station, but did not pay the taxi expenses, and refused to leave the taxi. Accordingly, upon receiving a demand from police officers, such as G, etc. in the circumstances belonging to the Y police station, to return the taxi at several times, the Defendant: (a) sent to G and the Y Police Station, saying, “Y Hak Hak Hak, Hak, and Man Han Han Hak Hah Hah Hah Hah, Hah Hahhh Hah,” and Hah Hah Hah Hah Hah Hah Hah Hah Hah Hah Hah to Hah Hah Hah, who tried to stop this.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the maintenance of order of the above G and H, a police officer.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made to H and G by the police;

1. Application of B’s written laws and regulations;

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Determination as to the defendant's assertion under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code of the Suspension of Execution

1. The police officer rejected the demand of the police officer to leave the taxi with the main point of his argument, and the police officer tried to arrest the defendant as an offender of the crime of obstructing official duty performance, and the defendant resisted the demand and argued to the effect that it is a justifiable act against the illegal performance of duty.

2. According to the evidence as seen earlier, the Defendant, beyond the police officer’s refusal of the lower demand, was found to have taken a bath to a police officer and carried the clothes of the police officer who intended to file the said demand by hand, carried the clothes of the police officer, carried them in his/her hand, and pushed down the breath.

The police officers have thereafter committed crimes against the defendant in the act of committing the crime.