However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On November 30, 2016, at around 13:57, the Defendant used “D” motor vehicle maintenance shop operated by the Defendant located in Dong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, the Defendant, despite the order of voluntary removal by the head of Dong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, occupied and used roads on the front road of the dong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, by piling up the motor vehicle log on the front road of the dong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, and used “F” without permission. The Defendant, as a administrative vicarious execution, went to the site and carried out a defect in the compulsory removal of the above other terms, and committed assault by setting up two other aluminium wheelchairs chairss in the dong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Incheon Metropolitan City, at the same time, in accordance with F’s head.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of administrative vicarious execution such as F's compulsory execution.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Investigation report, on-site photographs, voluntary removal order of facilities occupied without permission, and the person (A);

1. Application of CCTV images and investigation reports (CCTV Examination Results)-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act [the scope of recommending punishment] There is no basic area (from June to one year and six months) (the person subject to special sentencing) [the sentence] 6 months, and one year of suspended sentence, the defendant did not comply with the order of voluntary removal by the administrative authorities. Ultimately, the execution of administrative vicarious execution led to the failure of the administrative agencies to comply with the order of voluntary removal.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not object to his mistake and did not go against the process of vicarious execution, and did wheel chairs, thereby hindering the legitimate execution of official duties, so there is a lot of possibility of criticism.

The accused has five criminal records, one suspended sentence, and twenty-three criminal records of fines.

In this regard, imprisonment is selected.

However, the defendant generally recognizes his mistake and reflects his mistake.

Defendant’s use of force.