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.

On October 2, 2016, around 03:22, at the Defendant’s house of Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government apartment complex C, 501 Dong 303, and 112 reported that domestic violence was doubtful by its apartment residents, the Defendant prevented the Defendant who was under the influence of alcohol by the police box affiliated with the Seoul Yangcheon Police Station Down-gu, Seoul who was called out after receiving 112 reports from the said apartment residents, followed the Defendant by taking a bath to the said E, and carried the chest and shoulder parts by hand five times.

Then, the G security guards belonging to the above D police box that the defendant was her wife F had the chest over the floor by tightly pushing about two times the chests of the above G with the finger hand of the horse.

The Defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of duties by police officers with regard to the prevention of crimes, etc., and at the same time, the victim G security guards had the need to provide medical treatment for about 10 days and the base part of the frame.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement protocol with respect to E and G;

1. Each statement of the F;

1. Application of statutes to each investigation report and a copy of a diagnosis report;

1. Relevant Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of injury), Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties) and the choice of imprisonment for each crime;

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

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

1. As to the defense counsel and the Defendant’s argument regarding the observation of protection and community service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on the Protection, Observation, etc. of Social Service, and Article 59 of the same Act, the defense counsel and the Defendant asserted that the Defendant was in a state

However, comprehensively taking account of the circumstances such as the background and method of the instant crime, and the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the crime.

It does not appear.

The defense counsel and the defendant's assertion are accepted.