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

At around 14:40 on March 9, 2015, the Defendant: (a) was aware of the waste he had loaded on the road before the Yancheon-gu, Ocheon-si C, the environmental sanitation of the office and the cleaning team, and (b) was controlled against the illegal dumping of the waste by the foregoing D; (c) the Defendant was informed of the complaint against the illegal dumping of the waste by the foregoing D; and (d) the kack-kack (17Cm in length) which is a dangerous object of the use of the ordinary anti-high water upon the call of the Security Department, and threatened the public official with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the control of the illegal dumping of the waste.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of seizure records and list statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, and Articles 144 (1) and 136 (1) of the Criminal Act which choose a penalty;

2. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act ( considered as follows):

3. Reasons for the sentencing of Article 48(1)1 of the Confiscation Criminal Act [Scope of Recommendation] The sentence shall be determined as per the disposition, taking into consideration the following: (a) the basic area (6-1-4 months) of the first category of obstruction of performance of official duties (6-1-6 months) [no person who has been specially punished] / [decision of sentence] the defendant misjudgments the defendant; (b) the defendant's health status is good as an old age; (c) the denial of the defendant made efforts to prevent recidivism; and (d) the fact that there are only one previous conviction of the fine, etc.