A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On April 23, 2014, at around 13:03, the Defendant: (a) expressed that the Defendant was able to file a complaint with the Defendant, and the Defendant was able to use the part of the Seoul Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City E-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City E-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Police Station E-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City Police Station E-gu, which was called the Defendant, and that the Defendant was able to see the Defendant, “Chewing, dead, and knish”; (b) the Defendant was able to see the Defendant’s face, and the F was able to see the F’s e-mail, and the right lower part of the f’s e-line.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of police officers' duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol of partial police interrogation of the accused;

1. Each police statement of H, F, and G;

1. Application of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of damage (Evidence 12, 13, 14);

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime concerned (the point of obstruction of performance of official duties);

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The dismissal of prosecution under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

1. The summary of the facts charged was around 12:50 on April 23, 2014, on the grounds that the Defendant was faced with the disturbance, such as leaving the Defendant living in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City by Do Gosiwon 29, and having the D Gosiwon H would be able to assist the Defendant, and the Defendant was able to have the victim faced with the visit by hand, and the Defendant 112 reported the defects, followed the victim by following the 112 report, and strokeed the victim, and assaulted the victim stroke.

2. The above facts charged are crimes falling under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act. According to a written agreement bound in the trial records, the victim may recognize the fact that he/she has withdrawn his/her wish to punish the defendant on June 26, 2014, which was the date the prosecution of this case was instituted.