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

Around 01:20 on June 17, 2013, the Defendant obstructed the police officer’s lawful performance of duties regarding handling of reporting cases, including, but not limited to, the case of the instant taxi engineer and the case of a scambling, the assistant C belonging to B police box asked his personal information to be “scambing, scambling, and scambling.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on investigation reporting;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 136 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. The execution of a sentence shall be suspended only once, considering the favorable circumstances, such as the following: (a) the Defendant’s reason for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Social Service Order Act interferes with the police officer’s legitimate duties by force; (b) the Defendant’s injury to public goods and obstruction of performance of official duties in 2003; (c) the two-year suspended execution in 2003; and (d) the fact that there was no record of punishment for a fine of KRW 3 million due to obstruction of performance of official duties in 201; and (d) the fact that the Defendant committed the same crime repeatedly in 201; (c) the Defendant is against the Defendant’s wrong recognition; and (d) the degree of the police officer’s assault is not excessive.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.