However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On November 19, 2017, at around 00:00, the Defendant was under influence of alcohol at the main point of “C” located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju. Around November 19, 2017, the Defendant was going to go to the front of the above main point by the guard E and guard F of the police box of the Dong-gu Police Station, who called upon 112 report by the president of the said main point. At that place, the police officer requested the above police officer to move to the Defendant’s office of the police vehicle. However, on the ground that the police officer refused the request, the police officer “I Y, I am W W k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k

The spits or spits on the face of the above E that prevents the defendant while taking a bath as " while intending to board the police vehicle."

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a criminal investigation report (attached to a suspect who has submitted a victim's campaign and video data);

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act / [the scope of recommendation] The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Act / [the scope of punishment ] There is no person who has a basic area (from June to June 1) (the person who is subject to special sentencing) / [the sentence] / The sentence is determined as ordered in consideration of the following circumstances and the defendant's age, sex, conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and the conditions of sentencing as shown in the argument of this case.

The favorable circumstances: The error is divided in depth.

There is no previous offense exceeding a fine.

There is a need to support the wife and two children.

Unfavorable circumstances: The methods and contents of crimes are inferior.

Similar to this case, there are many criminal records who committed a crime by exercising violence and obstructing business.