However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On June 6, 2015, at least 04:50 on June 6, 2015, the Defendant expressed that “D convenience store” located in Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul means that “the head of the police station affiliated with the police station of Yongsan-gu, Seoul who called “the head of the police station,” who was called “the head of the police station, who was called after receiving a 112 report that “the head of the police station, fright to fright to fright to fright to fright away from fright to fright away from fright to fright away from fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fher

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the dispatch of 112 reported police officers and the handling of the case.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Each statement of G and H;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of damaged parts;

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

1. The reasons for the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act are as follows: (a) the overall sentencing conditions shown in the arguments in the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment; and (b) the recommended sentence specified in the sentencing guidelines shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account

The Defendant led to the instant crime, and is against himself.

B. On August 20, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine for obstruction of performance of official duties by the Seoul Western District Court.

C. The sentencing guidelines set forth in the sentencing guidelines [the range of recommendations] The basic area (6 to 1 year and 4 months) of the obstruction of performance of official duties (the obstruction of performance of official duties and coercion of official duties)