except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

At around 19:00 on April 12, 2015, the Defendant: (a) expressed a desire to “I am back to the Defendant after issuance of a notice of penalty payment due to an act that causes disturbance to drinking alcohol; (b) the Defendant expressed that “I am out, I am out, I am out, I am out, I am out, I am out, I am out, I am out, I am out, I am out, I am out, I am out, I am out, I am back, I am out, I am back, I am back, I am back, I am back, I am back, I am am back, I am am back,” and “I am am, I am out, I am, am out,” and assaulted the Defendant on the hand floor of the above C, such as “I am out, am out, and am out.”

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officials in relation to the handling of reports.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by police;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the investigation report (on-siteCCTV);

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. It is reasonable to strictly punish the defendant with a heavy emphasis on the degree of assault by the defendant for the reason of sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

However, considering the circumstances favorable to the defendant that the defendant recognized the facts of the crime, and that the defendant has no record of being punished for obstruction of performance of official duties, the defendant's means and results of the crime of this case, and considering all the sentencing conditions such as the circumstances after the crime, age, character and conduct, family environment, etc., the punishment as ordered shall be determined.