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

On January 21, 2016, the Defendant, at around 11:25, 2016, respondeded to the “C hospital” emergency room located in Pyeongtaek-si B by being called out after receiving 112 reports from nurses, and her hump E to ask the personal information of the Defendant, and assaulted the Defendant, by hand, with the hump of the hump E, and her hump E at one time.

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. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes by cutting CCTV images into the Republic of Korea;

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. Article 62 (1) of the same Act on the grounds for sentencing as follows;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on the Observation, etc. of Protection, etc. of Social Service Order;

1. The scope of the sentencing guidelines set by the Sentencing Committee of the Supreme Court Sentencing / [type] the scope of the sentence for recommendations / [the scope of the sentencing guidelines set by the Sentencing Committee / [the scope of the sentence for recommendations] where the mitigation area [the person who is subject to special sentencing] is minor in the scope of violence: One month and eight months;

2. In light of the fact that the crime committed by a police officer who duly executes his/her duties to determine a sentence of punishment is not less than that of the crime committed by violence, and that there is a history of criminal punishment of fines twice as a result of the same crime, it is true that there is a need for strict punishment of a defendant.

However, considering favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant recognized his/her mistake and did not repeat a crime, the degree of assault is relatively minor, and the fact that the defendant committed a contingent crime while under the influence of a certain degree, etc., the defendant's age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance after the crime, etc., the sentence like the order shall be imposed by comprehensively taking into account all the sentencing conditions specified in the arguments in the instant case, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, family relationship