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

1. On January 24, 2015, around 14:13, the Defendant: (a) invadedd a structure that was going up to the front of the second floor office through stairs, when the victim D, working in the Gyeonggi Suwon-si, Gyeonggi Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do, where the victim D, was working; and (b) the Defendant invadedd the structure through stairs.

2. At around 14:30 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) demanded the withdrawal of the circumstances belonging to the Suwon Police Station F District Unit of the Suwon Police Station, which was dispatched after receiving a report at the above place; and (b) caused the enormous bucks to the right side due to the locking of the body of G by hand; and (c) caused the enormous bucks to the right side.

The Defendant, as the above behavior was controlled by G and the police officer belonging to the same district group H, took twice the face of G by drinking, and accordingly, assaulted the Defendant, who was arrested as a flagrant offender committing an obstruction of performance of official duties and was in the patrol vehicle, walking the left face of G due to his appearance while being in the patrol vehicle.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the suppression of police officers' crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of each police statement related to D and G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the scene and damaged police officers;

1. Articles 319(1) and 136(1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime concerned;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and the proviso of Article 50 and Article 42 of the Criminal Act;

1. The crime of obstructing the performance of official duties by assaulting a police officer who was dispatched to a building managed by another person for the reason of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is bad, but there are circumstances to consider the crime of this case in the state where the defendant was suffering from king due to mental fission, and the defendant's family has been extremely endeavored for treatment of the defendant and normal rehabilitation into society, and it is judged that there is a need to place the defendant's family and guardian relation with his family in addition to mental treatment in order to facilitate the defendant's smooth rehabilitation into society. Thus, a suspended sentence is imposed.