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

1. On June 20, 2018, the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties is facing six men and women in front of C in Gunsan-si B.

Of them, whether the assistant E belonging to the military police station D commander of the military police station who called up after receiving the report of 112 that two persons shoulder and spawn together together with the two persons, is conducting an investigation as the right of the person without any person making a report.

It is called the match D, and the investigation was hindered.

Therefore, as the police officer G, who belongs to the police station F police box, prevented the defendant from interfering with the act of obstructing the defendant, the defendant assaulted him by taking the above G's hand by taking the left hand and the police officer's hand on one hand, and by taking the attitude that the defendant seems to have taken on the right drinking.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate performance of duties by police officers on a field investigation according to 112 report.

2. The Defendant was on the scene of defect in order for the victim E, a police officer affiliated with the military police station D police station affiliated with the police station, who was dispatched after receiving 112 reports at the date and time, at the place, and at the place, to grasp the facts about the report.

While being observed by many people, such as H and I, the victim was openly insultingd by publicly obsessesing “a sprinke to sprinke,” such as “fash,” in a large sense.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made to G or I by the police;

1. E statements;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of public duties), Article 311 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor, respectively;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. The facts that the defendant for the reason of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the suspended sentence under the Criminal Act reflects the crime are favorable factors of sentencing, or even though the defendant was already punished once by a fine for the crime of interference with the performance of official duties and insult in 2009, the crime of this case is committed at the same time. In particular, the defendant not only prevents the legitimate performance of official duties by a police officer in the course of performing official duties, but also is mixed.