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

On January 29, 2018, the Defendant: (a) around 23:25, at around 23:25, at the front of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on the taxi driver C in front of the taxi driver, sent to the scene after receiving a report of 112, and sent to the scene, the Defendant: (b) was defective in the phrase, “Abscoping a taxi to the house and paying a charge, and the wall and handphone shall report the loss to the house”; and (c) the Defendant sent the e’s right course to the right of the e once a week to the e-mail.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

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

1. Circumstances unfavorable to the reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act: All other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing specified in the pleadings of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, sex, career, home environment, motive for committing the instant crime, circumstance after committing the instant crime, etc., by assaulting the police officer who performs official duties without any justifiable reason, and the nature of the relevant crime is not good.