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

On October 14, 2017, the Defendant was demanded to disclose his personal information from D, who was called up on the front of B at around 20:12, around 20:0 on the Gyeongnam-si, around 2017, the Defendant did not die because of violence, a fine of 5 million won is double, and as a bitch bitch, the Defendant was under suspension of execution.

In doing so, the laves, installed on the laves of the side of the road, were crypted under the Gap himself, and the police officer avoiding this, "I am bling the laves," and assaulted D's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on site photographs and on-site photographs of damaged parts relating to interfering with the performance of public duties;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Reasons for the sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, including observation of protection and community service work;

1. The scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for one month to five years; and

2. The scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines [the scope of the recommended punishment] and the basic area (six months to one year and six months) (no person subject to special sentencing] shall interfere with the performance of public duties.

3. The fact that the defendant who was sentenced to sentence recognized the crime of this case and reflected in the crime of this case is favorable to the defendant.

Meanwhile, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment due to a violation of the Narcotics Control Act in 2016, and had the record of being sentenced to a fine due to a violent crime during the enforcement period. However, the Defendant committed the instant crime during the suspended sentence, and the Defendant committed the instant crime during the suspended sentence period, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment with labor due to a violation of the same kind of official duties.