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

On August 2, 2014, around 05:15, the Defendant: (a) arrested the Defendant as a flagrant offender in the crime of assault; and (b) threatened the police officer E, a police officer affiliated with the Seoul Western Police Station D District D District D District D, Seoul Western Police Station, who was called out after receiving domestic violence reports from the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 1 level C on August 2, 2014, with the intention of arresting the Defendant as an offender in the crime of assault; and (c) interfered with a police officer’s legitimate performance of duties concerning the handling of reporting duties by making contact to the hearing and audit office twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on witness E’s legal statement;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. The reasons for the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act are as follows: (a) the overall sentencing conditions shown in the arguments in the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment; and (b) the recommended sentence specified in the sentencing guidelines shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account

The Defendant denies the instant crime.

B. On August 22, 2011, the Defendant was punished on nine occasions by a fine for interference with business by the Seoul Western District Court, and among them, was punished twice in the same manner as the instant crime was committed.

C. The sentencing guidelines set forth in the sentencing guidelines [the range of recommendations] The basic area (6 to 1 year and 4 months) of the obstruction of performance of official duties (the obstruction of performance of official duties and coercion of official duties)