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

On July 13, 2018, at around 22:13, the Defendant: (a) reported 112 in Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, Bupyeong-gu C, and 1st floor D, that “the State operator continues to pay for the trial expenses”; (b) prevented the Defendant from entering the police guard F, the police officer G, and the police officer of the Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, E District Police Station, who called for a fighting with the Defendant, and expressed a desire to “to die for the spule” and “to die for the spule”, and carried the above F in several times.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officials in relation to 112 reporting affairs.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court (the fifth public trial date);

1. Each legal statement of witness F, H and I;

1. Application of photographs, investigation reports (on-site CCTV verification investigation), and video CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

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. In full view of the circumstances following the sentencing of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, following the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the instant crime, means and method, circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the sentence identical to the order shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances:

The crime of obstructing the performance of official duties is a crime that undermines the function of the State by nullifyinging a legitimate exercise of public authority and requires punishment corresponding thereto to establish a national legal order and eradicate the light view of public authority, and the defendant, from the investigative agency to the fourth public trial of this court, denied the crime of this case while making a unilateral assertion from the investigative agency to the fourth public trial of this court, and led the defendant at the fifth public trial date of this court, and led the defendant to the examination of evidence, such as questioning four victimized police officers, witnesses, etc. as a witness until the fifth public trial date, repeated reproduction of video CDs, etc., and the defendant has no record of criminal punishment other than the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint assault) on April 207, by committing a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint assault).