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 June 12, 2018, at around 02:21, the Defendant: (a) sent to the site after receiving a report from 112, that “A” was “A” in the Daegu Suwon-gu B; and (b) took a bath to “I knish, I am going back to the police station, I am home to the E’s face; (c) I am home to close the other door to the vehicle, and (d) I am home to close the other door to the vehicle, and (e) I am to remove the Defendant from the vehicle, and tried to remove him from the vehicle, and then remove him from the vehicle, and then I am back to the E as his hand.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of 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 F’s written Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 136 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. The criteria for sentencing for the reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended sentence [the scope of recommendations] The sentence shall be determined in full view of the following conditions of sentencing, including the defendant’s age, occupation, sex, family relationship, and circumstances before and after the crime, etc., as a whole, in the basic area (from June to June, 1), the sentence of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the scope of recommendations] that interferes with the performance of official duties.

- Obstruction of the performance of official duties should be strictly punished for offences that circumvente legitimate exercise of public authority and undermine national functions, and deposit KRW 300,000 for the recognition and reflect of crimes, and for damaged police officers