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

(e).

At around 22:20 on September 16, 2014, the Defendant: (a) asked questions about the circumstances of the instant case from G and H, the background leading up to the F District Department of the Nowon-gu Seoul Nowon-gu Police Station, which was called up after receiving a report of 112 that the Defendant interfered with the business; (b) asked him about the circumstances of the instant case; (c) asked him/her for a presentation of his/her identification card at the location of the said restaurant operator, etc.; (d) sent him/her a bath about G and G; (e) sent him/her five times his/her chest by hand; and (e) sent him/her five times his/her finger by hand; and (e) assaulted him/her about the process of videoing the Defendant’s act with a Handphone; and (e) assaulted him/her five times his/her chest.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning 112 reporting handling duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement prepared by G, H and I;

1. Application of investigation report (a photograph of an extraction of dynamic image recorded on the face of a crime), photographs (in the case of an offense, the suspect spawns of the victim and his spawns of the victim), and the application of statutes;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime concerned;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Part concerning the rejection of prosecution under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (including the violation of law and the absence of a criminal record of a fine or heavier punishment);

1. On September 16, 2014, at the restaurant of "E" located in Nowon-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, around 22:20, the Defendant was asked the victim G and the victim H about the circumstances of the instant case, who was dispatched after receiving a report of 112 that the business interfered with the business, and the Defendant was requested to present his identification card from the victim G at the location of the above restaurant operator I and the employeeJ, etc., and the Defendant was able to view the victim G due to the following reasons: (a) whether the above restaurant operator I and the employeeJ, etc., is Chewing, and in accordance with the same manner, the Defendant took a desire to read "E" in the same restaurant; and (b) the victim H is in accordance with this new, low-quality, and the inspection of his identification card, and inspection.