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

1. On October 15, 2015, the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties: (a) around 06:30 on October 15, 2015, the Defendant: (b) sent a police box affiliated with the police box of the Seoul Gwangjin-gu Police Station C, Seoul, where he returns home in front of the Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and (c) sent a warning that the Defendant’s behavior constitutes a crime of interference with the performance of official duties; (b) “Choe, sp, sp, sp, sphere, sphere, sphere, sphere, sphere, sphere, sphere, sphere, sphere, sphere, sphere, sphere, sphere, spheres

" ........... was f.o.b. the above D's timber was skeed, the above D's chest was tightly sealed by the ppurir, and the f.o.b., the f.s., the f.s., the f.s., and the f.s., the f.s., the f.s., the f.s., the f.s., the f.

2. The Defendant, at the same time and place as above, expressed the victim D’s desire to “the gue, weather, and sphere will be in flue, and the sphere will be in flue,” thereby openly insulting the victim in the presence of the cab E and the flue.

Summary of Evidence

1. Application of the accused's statutory statement E, each police statement written complaint against D, investigation report, and video-related Acts and subordinate statutes that obstruct the performance of official duties;

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (Interference with the performance of official duties, Selection of imprisonment), and Article 311 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense (a point of insult and choice of imprisonment);

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. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. In light of the fact that the Defendant, for the reason of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act, committed the instant crime even though he/she had the record of being punished for the same kind of crime, and that the nature of the instant crime is inferior and that the offender is not less than that of the crime, and that the victim is strongly demanding the punishment against the Defendant, it is necessary to severely punish the Defendant.