A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date of the pronouncement of this judgment.

Punishment of the crime

1. Around November 16, 2016, the Defendant was on board the victim C-si at the S-si S-dong S-dong S-dong from 02:20 on November 16, 2016, and the Defendant was found to have paid a full taxi fee to the victim in a normal manner, despite the absence of the intent or ability to pay the full taxi fee, and the Defendant was provided with the victim with the taxi service of an amount equivalent to KRW 9,600 that is operated to the road near the F-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si,

2. Interference with performing public duties;

A. On the same day as paragraph 1, the Defendant: (a) expressed a desire to commit the crime against G in front of the Hacheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City H; (b) on the 112-report on the crime described in paragraph 1, to the head of the police station I of the Seocheon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City Police Station G who called on the site after receiving a report; and (c) to the head of the Hacheon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City Police Station G who called up on the site; and (d) “Isk-in who do not have a taxi,” on his arms, pushed the shoulder and breast part of the above G, and pushed the face of the said G by hand.

As a result, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning the handling of 112 reports.

B. From around 02:50 on the same day as Paragraph 1, the Defendant committed the crime against the Gyeong-gu Police Station of the Busan District Police Station of the Busan District, which was arrested and taken place in the act of committing the crime as described in Paragraph 1 (a) above, the Defendant was sleeping with the Defendant, who was seated in the front seat of the suspect by the Gyeong-gu Police Station of the said District, with his son and hand.

As a result, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the police officer's custody of arrested suspects.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement to G and J (List 6,7);

1. C’s statement (List 2);

1. Each investigation report (List 10,13);

1. Application of the video CD-related statute (List 11);

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act, and imprisonment with prison labor for each of the following crimes:

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 62 of the Criminal Act: