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 April 20, 2017, the Defendant, as a citizen of 210 Dolsan City, had a complaint against the fact that there was a large amount of forced removal of illegal buildings under the influence of alcohol in 9 Dolsan Dolsan-si B, 2017, and had the head of the D team affiliated with Dolsan Dolsan-si C.

The defendant was asked from the public official E belonging to the Viewers B, and the above E was drinking twice.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning viewing administrative affairs by public officials belonging to the office in Ansan-si.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (CCTV and witness investigation);

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act [Scope of Recommendation] There is no person [the person who has been subject to special sentencing] in the basic area (6 months to 1 year and 6 months) [Judgment of sentencing] [the defendant does not have any unfavorable circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant again committed the instant crime despite multiple violent criminal records, but there is no disadvantage, such as the fact that the defendant committed the instant crime even though multiple violent criminal records, but the defendant recognizes and reflects the mistake, the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant, and the defendant's age, sex, environment, criminal records, criminal records, circumstances after the crime, etc. are considered and determined as the order of punishment as stated in the instant argument.