except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Around 01:40 on June 8, 2019, the Defendant expressed that “F, a police officer belonging to the Seoul Sejong Cancer Police Station E zone, who had received 112 reports on taxi charges at the front of Seongbuk-gu Seoul, and heard the statements of passengers C and D, stated “F face at the right end” in the bill of indictment. However, according to the evidence, the Defendant appears to be “F face at one time on the left side” in the front of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, while the Defendant appears to be “F face at the right end” in the bill of indictment. However, according to the evidence, the Defendant’s face at the face appears to be a clear mistake, so the Defendant’s correction shall be made ex officio.

The face of F was f one time, and the f was tightly pushed by a hand, and the f was tightly pushed.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the fourth protocol of trial;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. A report on investigation to close the course;

1. CCTV CDs (the Defendant and his defense counsel asserted to the effect that, although the police officer took the right arms of the Defendant and took them off to ppuri, the police officer’s face is not written. However, according to the evidence in the judgment, the Defendant’s purchase of the right arms with the police officer’s face and the fact that the police officer’s price the upper part of the police officer’s face with his own outer direction can be acknowledged. Thus, the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion cannot be accepted.)

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

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (a favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing) is deemed to obstruct a police officer’s legitimate execution of duties by assaulting a police officer who has dealt with the 112 reported case. In order to establish the State’s legal order, the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties needs to be strictly punished, and the degree of assault is minor.