A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On May 19, 2014, at around 04:30, the Defendant was living together with a female in the Defendant’s residence located in the Gumi-si B Stud B 203. On May 19, 2014, the Defendant: (a) sent to the Defendant, upon receiving 112 a report, the Defendant: (b) instructed D to ask him about the circumstances of the instant case to the female living together; and (c) heard D’s explanation that “When domestic violence is suspected of assault, he shall perform his duties in accordance with the procedure, if the domestic violence is discovered” from D, the Defendant expressed to D, “I will see that I will do so so, the Defendant she will do so by hacking the humbbbro that will do so.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning police officers' patrol and suppression of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (in relation to assignment to work place);

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

1. Suspension of execution under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da1448, Apr. 1, 2007);