A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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 March 30, 2014, at around 05:26, the Defendant was arguing with his female-friendly E in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, 201 Dong 104 (D apartment), and the Defendant obstructed the Defendant’s legitimate execution of duties and maintenance of order by excluding the police officials, G, and H’s lawful execution of duties and maintenance of public order by neglecting the disturbance and demanding the return of personal belongings to E, which is a police officer affiliated with the Seoul Western Police Station, who was called upon the report of 112 of E.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Each police statement related to G and H;

1. Each statement of E and I;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs about the degree of damage by police officers;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. The reason for the sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., circumstances to be considered in the reasons for sentencing) is [the scope of recommendation] where the degree of violence, intimidation, and deceptive scheme is minor (special mitigation) in the area of mitigation (one month or August) of the obstruction of performance of official duties (special mitigation) (the above sentencing standard] of the above sentencing standard is against the defendant's mistake, while there are three criminal convictions due to violence, and there are no records of the same crime, the sentence is determined as per the disposition, taking into account all the circumstances that are the conditions for the sentencing of this case.