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.

1. Around 02:30 on September 20, 2017, the Defendant insultd the victims by openly insulting the victims on the ground that “no taxi passenger will occur” on the front of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Seoul, Gangnam-gu), on the ground that the victim F, a police officer belonging to the Seoul, Gangnam Police Station E District Police Station E-gu, Seoul, and the Defendant who was divingd by G, a taxi engineer, and a large number of traffic users, are broken.”

2. The Defendant: (a) committed assault, at the same date, at the same time, and at the same place, on the ground that the police officers belonging to the Gangnam Police Station E District would prevent a police officer assigned to the Seoul Gangnam Police Station E District from getting out of the taxi, who was dispatched to the scene, from getting out of the taxi seat; and (b) committed assault, such as being pushed out the I’s breast part of the chest and being taken off one-time face.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning the handling of reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made to I by the police;

1. A written statement of F and G;

1. Report on investigation;

1. Application of each statute on filing of a complaint;

1. Article 311 of the Criminal Act (a point of insult) and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense (a point of obstructing the performance of official duties) of the same Act;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. It is so decided as per Disposition on the grounds of not less than Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 62Da148, Apr. 1,