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

On June 26, 2017, around 00:20, the Defendant: (a) on the H Jeong door located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G on June 26, 2017, “a drunk male is under the influence of alcohol”; (b) the Defendant, upon receiving a report from 112, was moving to the site with the victim J ( South, 30 years old)’s assistance from the Seoul Gangnam Police Station I police station, who was dispatched to the site; (c) asked the victim’s accurate residence and contact without any justifiable reason; and (d) received the victim’s face one time.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties regarding the protection of the people's body of police officers, and at the same time, the Defendant placed approximately three weeks of medical treatment on the victim, such as “satisfing the bones.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police to J;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a medical certificate;

1. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of injury) and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 40 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. A normal condition unfavorable to the reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on Suspension of Execution: The defendant has been punished several times for violent crimes; the defendant has a history of having been punished by a fine; the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties is highly necessary to be punished by a violation of public authority and disturbing legal order; the degree of injury is relatively more favorable: There has been no record of punishment heavier than a crime of obstructing the performance of official duties or a fine; the defendant has committed a crime against himself/herself and agreed with the victimized police officer; the defendant's age, behavior, environment, etc. shall be determined as the same as the order.