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

On March 20, 2016, around 07:18, the Defendant’s wife “to throw away” from the Defendant’s wife at the apartment apartment parking lot B in Gwangju-gu, Gwangju-gu.

“ .....” The 112-reported 112-to require a slope D’s cell phone location tracking of the wife to a sloping unit belonging to the Gwangju Northern Police Station C District District of the Police Station of the Gwangju Northern Police Station, and the 1st head of the febbb where the few head does not find promptly.

“Catherbing as her hand, her bat her bat her bat, and her bat E reported the bat her bat E, and arrested the Defendant as a current offender interfering with the performance of official duties.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning reporting duties and criminal investigations by police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement in each police statement made to D or E;

1. A copy of the work site in the C District;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on photograph description;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. The prosecutor of Article 40 and Article 50 of the Criminal Code were indicted as substantive concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code.

However, if the act of assault and intimidation was committed against multiple public officials performing the same official duties, the crime of obstructing the performance of multiple official duties is established according to the number of public officials performing the official duties. If the above act of assault and intimidation was committed in the same opportunity at the same place, and is assessed as one act under the social concept, the crime of obstructing the performance of multiple official duties is in a relationship of conceptual concurrence.

The Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505 Decided June 25, 2009 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505, Jun. 25, 2009)

1. In light of the background and method of the instant crime for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, the following should be taken into account: (a) although the nature of the instant crime is not good in light of the reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Suspension of Execution Act; (b) the fact that the Defendant is against the Defendant; (c) there is no history of the