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 is a person who makes a one-person demonstration at the front of the 219 large court, Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

On July 6, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 09:10 on July 6, 2016, on the ground that, in front of the 219 Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul High Court’s ruling, when the car on which D was in motion to enter the Supreme Court’s ruling, F.C., who was assigned to the police box of the Seocho-gu Seoul High Police Station Emba, providing the protection of D, prevents the Defendant from breaking up to the roadway.

The breathly expressed “F’s breath with f’s breath, and f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s fat, and expressed that the Defendant brought the Defendant behind F’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the protection of the D police officers' personal affairs.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness F, G, H, I, J, K, L, and M;

1. A written statement of work progress and request for the protection of personal safety;

1. A damaged photograph (G) or on-site photograph;

1. A investigation report (CCTV image analysis) and a photograph of CCTV upon the date of the instant case;

1. Application of CCTV-related Acts and subordinate statutes to Chapter 1 CDs;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act concerning the ordinary concurrent crimes (a punishment imposed on a person who has committed a crime with heavier punishment than that of a crime)

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Determination on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Summary of the assertion

A. It is not a legitimate execution of official duties in the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, since it is not a legitimate execution of official duties in the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, when the defendant wants to enter into the Supreme Court sentence, even though he did not set up a roadway to the roadway.

B. The Defendant did not have intended and exercised F and G as such as the facts charged, and the Defendant’s home service was frighted to the F, and the Defendant was frighted to sit.