A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On January 6, 2017, at the front of the D cafeteria located in Daegu Northern-gu C around 22:00, the Defendant recommended the Defendant to return home to the Defendant on the front of the D cafeteria, who was dispatched to the site after receiving a report on the disturbance from the surrounding cafeteria, by the background and F of the E Zone belonging to the Daegu Northern Police Station, and by the policeman, who was dispatched to the site, the Defendant: “I do not have a seat of Ga, Ha-in;

Gman expressed his will to be "Imar in his son's son's son's son's son's son's son's face."

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes of the police statement protocol to G;

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

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act for the observation of protection and observation [the scope of the recommended sentence] There is no person [the person who has been subject to special sentencing] in the basic area (from June to one year and six months) of category 1 (the scope of the recommended punishment] [the person who has been subject to special sentencing] of the Criminal Act - The unfavorable circumstances are that the crimes such as exercising violence against a police officer who solicits the defendant to invalid home, taking a bath within the earth, avoiding disturbance, etc. are not less than 30 times, and that the record of punishment for violent crimes, including interference with the execution of official duties, is not less than 20 times more favorable: The fact that there is no previous conviction after 2012, and that there is no other crime against the defendant's age, sexual behavior, intelligence and environment, motive, means, results, results, etc. of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc. are considered in the arguments of this case and determine the punishment as ordered by the order of this case.