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 September 11, 2015, at around 22:10 on September 22, 2015, the Defendant was subject to on-site search from the victim E belonging to the affiliated district unit of the Jinjin-gu Police Station Dukjin-gu Police Station D, Seoul, upon receiving a report of illegal waste incineration, and from the victim police officer F, on the job where G and H are located, and on the job where he was located, “Chewing fice” to the victims, and she is the police.

The term "brupt" refers to a large sense to the purport of "the arrest of a flagrant offender from the victims", and as a result there is a concern for the arrest of a flagrant offender, the attitude that the victim seems to have shown in the table of the dog he raised (e.g., Doer: Doer) is the same as that of the victims, and the victims can arrest them;

Terrorism was made to the effect that “to throw away a dog” was “to throw away it.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning the suppression and investigation of crimes, and openly insulting victims.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to F and E;

1. G statements;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. Article 136 of the Criminal Act and Article 311 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense (a point of obstructing the performance of official duties) of the relevant Act;

2. Articles 40 and 50 of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes Act (the punishment imposed on a person who interferes with the execution of public duties by mutual consent and by obstructing the performance of public duties by mutual consent and by obstructing the performance of public duties by mutual consent and by mutual consent among persons who are more severe);

3. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

4. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the same Act (to the extent that the punishment for each of the above crimes is aggregated).

5. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution of the Criminal Procedure (the following conditions favorable to the defendant on the grounds of sentencing) was committed by the defendant upon receiving a report of illegal incineration, and was likely to bring the defendant to the police officer and be arrested in the act of committing an act of committing an act of committing an offense, which would hinder the police officer's legitimate execution of official duties by threatening the same attitude that would inflict harm on the life and body of the police officer, and thus, the nature and the criminal intent of the crime are not weak.