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

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

The Defendant, as a driver of Sejong Special Self-Governing City B operated in transit at the time of Sejong Special Self-Governing Province, D, who is in charge of the above traffic and the operation of Sejong Special Self-Governing City B, has reduced the Defendant’s service allowance of KRW 200,000 on the ground of the Defendant’s d's c's c's c's c's c's c's c's c'b

On November 4, 2016, the Defendant: (a) at the office of the operation center of the Class B located in the Sejong E site around 17:00, the Defendant “I am to am to am to am to am to home.”

N. A service allowance for marbling

Ga. The Mep gup. The Mep. D’s Mep. D’s Mep. The Mep. B’s Mep. B’s blue bow, and the document bags cited in the above D’s blue blue hand when they were 10 times more than her blue, etc., with the document bags cited in the above D’s blue blue blue hand, which continued to be hump with a large sound, and the said office’s b

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the operation of the Sejong Special Self-Governing City B by public officials.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D and F;

1. The report on investigation intelligence report, on-site photographs, the end of each hour, B driver's fee payment criteria, payment specifications, and B operation guidelines [the defendant and the defense counsel at the time of the instant case, while there was a fact that the defendant committed a blue blue blue blue blue with a document bag blue D with a blue blue blue blue blue blue, and there was no disturbance of the office's blue blue blue with a document bag blue blue blue blue, etc. However, according to each of the above evidence, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of

Therefore, the above assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel cannot be accepted.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 136(1) of the option of punishment (a) of the Criminal Act;