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

On December 4, 2015, at around 02:55, the Defendant changed the Defendant’s moving female-child D’s house located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, to visit D’s house, and the Defendant called F, a police officer belonging to the Seoul Gangseo Police Station E District unit, called the Defendant to return to his house, and tried to depart from the patrol vehicle, and the Defendant started to board the said police officer’s seat on one occasion through the patrol window opened to drinking house.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate performance of duties concerning the prevention, suppression, etc. of police officers' crimes related to 112 report.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. A criminal investigation report (suspected Kakao Stockholm dialogue content);

1. Investigation report (Investigation of black boxes);

1. Application of the CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes (booms and videos of patrol vehicles);

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties and the choice of imprisonment);

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines [the types of decisions] the basic area [the scope of the recommended punishment], the basic area [the scope of the recommended punishment] six months to one year and four months; and

2. Circumstances unfavorable to a decision of sentence: The crime of this case is not likely to cause serious harm to the exercise of legitimate public authority by the defendant by assaulting a police officer.

There is no circumstance that the defendant's part of the part of the damaged police officer's length is about the degree of damage and the damage recovery is not easy.

The defendant does not appear after being served with a writ of summons and does not have good circumstances after committing the crime.

The favorable circumstances: The defendant has no specific criminal punishment in addition to the punishment for a fine once.

There was no additional damage, such as inflicting an injury on a victimized police officer.

It seems that the defendant had an opportunity to reflect while living in prison.

The above circumstances and the defendant in this case.