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

1. At around 01:50 on March 1, 2015, the Defendant: (a) taken a taxi in front of Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul; (b) took the taxi in front of C taxi; and (c) took a stop from the victim guard F (53 years old) of the Seodaemun-gu Police Station Estation sent after receiving a report; and (d) took a stop from the victim guard of the police box affiliated with the police box of Seodaemun-gu Police Station (53 years old); and (b) took a bath to the Defendant, “I saw, I saw,” and “I spaws”, while I am and are under the supervision of the police.

Accordingly, the defendant openly insultingd the victim.

2. The Defendant was arrested as a flagrant offender in the crime of insult at the time and place mentioned in the above Paragraph (1) above and carried out as a police box. On the same day, around 03:25, the Defendant moved to the Seodaemun Police Station located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, to the Seodaemun Police Station at the entrance of the entrance of the 1st floor, and received a demand to leave from the Seodaemun Police Station Estation at the patrol vehicle at the entrance of the police box at the entrance of the 1st floor of Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, the Defendant expressed Ga to Ga that Ga “I jog” was “I jog,” and the right chest was frighted once by drinking.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers on the arrest of flagrant offenders and criminal investigation.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The statement of each police officer made to F and G;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion on the investigation report (a counter-investigation of a shote), the Defendant alleged that he was in a state of mental disorder or mental disorder by making a statement that he had no memory under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime. Thus, according to each of the above evidence, the Defendant was found to have drinking alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, but did not have the ability or ability to make a decision to discern things.

The defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted as it seems to be in a state or weak condition.

Application of Statutes

1. Articles 311 and 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act among concurrent crimes;