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

On October 16, 2017, around 05:48, the Defendant driven a taxi in front of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the taxi he/she has driven along the train on the front of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

At the same time, while having taken a cab's assistant seat and carried a cab driver and trial expenses, the slope E and policeman F, who is a police officer belonging to the Seoul Franc Police Station D police box, dispatched after receiving a report, can interfere with the defendant's business because the defendant's "if the cab continues to exist, it may interfere with the business."

B. On the ground that he/she gets home, he/she could not drive by blocking the front of the patrol vehicle No. 41, which the police officer boarded, and forced the front of the patrol vehicle to open a door on the direction of the driver’s seat, gets the front of the said patrol vehicle into the front, and bring the Defendant into the front door of the slope E where he/she was seated, and 2 to 3 times the chest part of the Defendant’s chest, which he/she tried to arrest the Defendant as a flagrant offender.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the police officer's 112 reporting duty and legitimate execution of duty related to the arrest of flagrant offenders.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. As to the investigation report (as to the instant 42 blacks and videos (in the outside)

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that the defendant's act of standing in front of the patrol car or opening the door of the patrol car to get off and off the arms of the police officer constitutes a justifiable act, which is the use of the police officer to carry out public duties as reported by the defendant, and constitutes a justifiable act.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, namely, E and F, a police officer at the present site, are relatively consistent from the investigative agency to the present court, and the defendant was obstructed by the patrol vehicle, and the defendant was forced to open the front of the patrol vehicle while the patrol vehicle was in progress.