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

On May 1, 2015, at around 04:10, the Defendant: (a) tried to leave the workplace without the name, etc. of the police officer, a police officer, who was in the patrol, who was a police officer of Pyeongtaek-gu Police Station C police station, who was in the patrol, to speak his personal information from E while on the road located in Pyeongtaek-si (hereinafter referred to as Pyeongtaek-gu Police Station C police station, which was in the patrol; (b) the police officer, who was in the patrol, attempted to leave the workplace; and (c) the police officer, upon the Defendant’s request, assaulted the police officer D of the above police officer D at one-2 times on the right drinking.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on crime control.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of each written statement (D, F) statute;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Probation and community service order and the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act [Scope of Recommendation] The basic area of the first category (in the case of obstruction of performance of official duties/performance of official duties) (6-1 year and four months) of the Criminal Act / [decision of sentence] the defendant has no criminal record exceeding the fine, and other various circumstances shown in the records, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, family environment