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

On March 14, 2019, at around 00:45, the Defendant: (a) 112 reported 112, that “the Defendant was assaulted at the bottom of the pedestrian bridge near Busan apartment; (b) Doctrine, “I am going back to the house”, “I am going back to the house” from the border D belonging to the Busan Coast Guard C District of the Busan Coast Guard, and from E, “I am going back to the house, I am to the house,” and “I am back to the house, I am to the house, I am to the end,” and am to the end.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers related to criminal investigation.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the damaged party photographs, and each investigation report (referring to the E of reference witnesses and the hearing ofF statements);

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 136 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. Although the errors of the defendant in the reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act are not somewhat minor, the sentence shall be determined as ordered in consideration of all the following factors: the defendant's age, environment, means and results (the degree of intimidation and assault) of the crime, circumstances after the crime, family relations, etc., in light of the fact that the defendant is against the defendant and the social ties are clear;