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

On September 11, 2015, at around 19:45, the Defendant was subject to control on the ground that he violated the transportation signal to the Seoul Gangseo-gu Police Station and the police officers belonging to the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Police Station and C, who operated the 100 otobane in violation of the transportation signal.

The Defendant, upon receiving a request from the above police officer to stop the driver’s license and the Otoba, proceeded with the Defendant’s Otoba while controlling only the Defendant’s Otoba, and proceeded with the Defendant’s mass movement. Despite the police officer’s taking hand and delivery box to stop Obaba, the Defendant continued approximately 35 meters of the Defendant’s driving license.

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous objects and interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. E statements;

1. Application of the police protocol law to C

1. Relevant Article 144(1) and Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Taking into account the reflection of the accused and the fact that the accused has no previous record);

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