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 September 9, 2016, at around 19:00, the Defendant: (a) sent to the site after receiving a report from the head of the police box belonging to the police box called up to the site on the 112 report that “the principal takes part in the parking lot;” and (b) took a bath to the Defendant seated in the parking lot due to the alcohol of the head of the police box called up to the site; (c) took an empty bottle on the way of moving away from the parking lot to the delivery of the vehicle; and (d) f took a bath to the public; and (d) prevented the Defendant from doing the above act by taking advantage of the Defendant’s arms, the Defendant assaulted the police officer by making a request once as soon as possible.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the police officer's crime prevention and the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. A copy of the 112 reported case processing list, work log;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

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

1. The crime is not likely to be committed by assaulting a police officer who has worn a uniform for the reason of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution. However, in consideration of all the circumstances, the sentence shall be determined as ordered in consideration of the following: (a) the defendant reflects his mistake; (b) the defendant has no record of the same kind of suspended execution or more for a considerable period of time; (c) the defendant is hospitalized in a hospital due to mental illness