A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant: (a) around September 14, 2017, at around 17:16, at the Seoul, the second floor traffic public service center of the CGu office, and on the ground that it did not properly regulate the illegal spirits, and (b) as many civil petitioners observe, the Defendant: (c) carried the article to the victim D, who is a public official of the C office traffic guidance department and the affiliated agency, and (d) thrown away the article.

Mepacta. It shall be discarded without crackdown.

“Intimid intimidation,” and to the victim E who is a public official belonging to the same affiliated agency, who made the speech, “E, obner, obs.”

It shall be discarded by the death of bitch bitch.

“Intimidating the public official under his or her control,” and to the F

Dr. He shall throw away his death.

“Intimidating”.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of duties of the public officials on the civil petition treatment, and at the same time insulting victims.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the witness D, F, E, G, H, and I;

1. Partial entry of a protocol concerning the suspect examination of the police against the defendant;

1. Entry into a protocol concerning the examination of the police officer in G;

1. Each police statement made to F or D;

1. Application of CCTV image-related Acts and subordinate statutes attached to a report on internal investigation;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 311 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense (a point of obstructing the performance of official duties) of the same Act;

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

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following factors shall be considered in favor of the defendant among the reasons for sentencing);

1. Determination as to the defendant's assertion under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on the observation of protection and observation

1. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant asserted that public officials were not able to properly control illegal spirits, but did not threaten public officials by threatening them such as taking a bath, etc. Rather, the Defendant was assaulted and detained by various public officials including G, and public officials at the time of the instant case were performing official duties.