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

1. On November 27, 2018, from around 00:27 to 01:08 of the same day, the Defendant ordered alcohol at the D main points operated by the victim C in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul. However, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s main business by force by avoiding disturbance, such as the victim’s hair, kiding the victim’s head, booming, walking the table table, walking the victim’s return under the heavy drinking water, and obstructing the victim’s main business by force.

2. 공무집행방해 피고인은 2018. 11. 27. 01:08경 위 장소에서, '술 취한 손님이 난동을 부린다.'는 112 신고를 받고 출동한 경찰관 E가 피고인이 다른 테이블의 손님을 향해 주먹을 휘두르려는 것을 보고 피고인을 주점 밖으로 데려가자, 피고인은 주점 앞에서 위 E를 향해 주먹을 휘두르고 발로 E의 종아리 부위를 걷어찼다.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of E and C;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to each internal investigation report, police officers' documentary evidence, CDs of dynamics, video-faculing photographs, video-faging photographs, and copies of business license certificates

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Although there is no record of being punished for the same crime as the sentencing of Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act for the suspension of execution, it is possible to have the record of being fined for violent crime, the degree of violence is very serious, etc., which are disadvantageous to the defendant, and the decision of imprisonment shall be made taking

However, it appears that the defendant has recognized the crime of this case and is against the law.