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 March 9, 2016, at around 19:20, the Defendant: (a) reported that the Defendant was not in a restaurant under the influence of alcohol at the D restaurant located in Suwon-si C; and (b) asked the Defendant questions about the personal information of the Defendant; (c) the police box belonging to the Police Station E box belonging to the Suwon-si Police Station from among the Suwon-si Police Station, the Defendant, on the left hand of the Defendant, prices the F’s right-hand spack on the floor of the Defendant’s own hand.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the police officer's legitimate performance of duties on the handling of 112 reports.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing the G production;

1. Relevant Article 136 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. As to the assertion of the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (a favorable circumstance examined in the following) of the suspended sentence, the Defendant did not memory under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant case.

Therefore, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant was under the influence of alcohol to be asked about his personal information from F, a police officer, who was called out after receiving a 112 report that the defendant does not leave a restaurant, and was asked questions about his personal information, and it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant's right-hand boom with the left side of the defendant's right-hand boom and interfered with legitimate execution of duties.

Even when examining the Defendant’s assertion to the effect that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, in light of various circumstances, such as the background and process of the instant crime, the means and method of the crime, the act before and after the instant crime, and the attitude and content of the statement to the investigative agency, which were revealed by the evidence revealed by the aforementioned evidence, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant case.

Even though it is found that there was no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

It is not visible.

Therefore, this part of the argument is accepted.