However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date of the final judgment.

On April 2, 2014, at around 23:20, the Defendant: (a) threatened “Cju” located in Geumcheon-gu Seoul, Geumcheon-gu, with the drinking value problem; (b) the police officers E and F belonging to the Seoul Geumcheon Police Station D District, who were dispatched after receiving a report of 112, to pay the drinking value and to return home; and (c) sent back to the above E with the drinking value; and (d) threatened the Defendant “I am to go back to the police officer, who died of the death of the police officer, and broken down the seat of the police officer; and (e) continued to go back to the above police officers by cutting the beer’s disease on the customer of the main bank.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the maintenance of police officers' order and legitimate execution of their duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to police statements of E, F and G;

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

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes Act (Mutual Crimes of Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties in Judgment against Victims or Police Officers);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act / [Scope of Recommendation] In the case of showing an aggravated area (one-year or four years of obstruction of performance of official duties), [a person under special guard] the threat of collective force or carrying dangerous things (one-year or four years of imprisonment] [a sentence of sentence] 8 months of imprisonment, suspension of execution 2 years, community service order 80 hours (a person under special guard who committed this case while carrying a shoulderer’s disease), etc., under unfavorable circumstances, such as the fact that the person committed the principal offense, the fact that the person was sentenced to a fine for the same kind of crime, and the fact that the person was sentenced to a fine for the same kind of crime, the fact that the person of the victimized police officer was not directly tangible, the fact that the person of the victimized police officer was not directly tangible, the fact that the person of the victimized police officer was not guilty, the fact that there is no force of being sentenced