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 became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On June 15, 2015, at around 23:07, the Defendant: (a) was seated at the border of India and the road in the Busan Jin-gu C, Busan, and (b) was assaulted by the Defendant at the time of using the f’s chest in his hand when he was able to look at the f’s house because the f’s horse is dangerous from the border F, the f’s f’s seat, which was at the seat of the E zone where the patrol was conducted, to carry the f’s f’s chest at his seat; and (c) f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s fat with the hand of the patrol vehicle.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (to hear statements by G police officers);

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The reasons for the sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter the reasons for sentencing) of the suspended sentence [the scope of recommendation] of the obstruction of performance of official duties shall be sentenced to the same sentence in consideration of all the circumstances, including the following: (a) there is no basic area (6 months to 1 year and 4 months); (b) no person who has been punished for the same kind of crime [decision of sentence]; (c) there is no history of punishment for the same kind of crime; (d) there is clear social relation; (e) there is clear social relation; and (e) the depth of his mistake and reflects