A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

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.

Punishment of the crime

1. On April 29, 2017, at the entrance of the entrance entrance of the victim C in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on April 29, 2017, the Defendant refused to remove property or to leave, on his/her hand, on the ground that he/she did not compensate the victim who aided before the towing, and on his/her hand, did not comply with the request even though he/she requested the victim to change the amount of the repair cost.

2. The Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties at the time and place specified in paragraph 1, and at the place specified in paragraph 1, and at the location specified in paragraph 1, and where the Defendant was informed of the circumstances belonging to the Seoul Seongbuk-gu Police Station D police station, and the Defendant was informed of the fact that the circumstances belonging to the D police station in Seongbuk-gu, Seoul were faced with the Defendant, thereby obstructing the police officers’ legitimate performance

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of C’s written laws and regulations

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, Article 319(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act, and each choice of imprisonment with prison labor;

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 reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution is that the crime is not light in light of the circumstances and contents of each of the crimes in this case, the defendant has been punished several times for violent crimes, such as obstructing the performance of official duties, etc. Meanwhile, the defendant confessions and reflects each of the crimes in this case, the defendant's talks about drinking at the victim's house, and divided the defendant's talks about drinking at the victim's house, and the victim of the crime of refusing the destruction of property in this case appears to have not been punished against the defendant as the omission of the defendant, and the fact that there was no criminal history exceeding the fine of the defendant, etc., and taking into account the overall circumstances and sentencing criteria revealed in the records in this case and the changes theory.