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

On October 13, 2018, at around 01:25, the Defendant discovered the Defendant, who was in dispute with the police officer C belonging to the Daegu Seo-gu Police Station B, which was under the influence of drinking in the vicinity, and said that he was in dispute with the taxi engineer, and paid the taxi fee and returned home. On October 13, 2018, the Defendant took a bath to the above police officer, and took a part of the police officer’s order at his left hand at one time.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers on crime prevention and investigation.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the police protocol law to C

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. In order to establish the reasoning and order of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act and eradicate the light of the public authority, there is a need to strictly punish a crime that interferes with the performance of official duties. Meanwhile, considering the following: (a) the Defendant’s perception of his/her mistake and reflects that the Defendant does not repeat the crime; and (b) other circumstances such as degree of damage, circumstances leading up to the crime, degree of the crime, circumstances after the crime, criminal records, and prosecutor’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) are comprehensively considered.