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

Around 21:40 on March 23, 2016, the Defendant received a penalty payment notice from the Jinju Police Station D District E affiliated with the Jinju Police Station D District E, who called for after receiving a report on a disturbance under the influence of alcohol, and received a penalty payment notice. On the same day, at around 23:20 on the same day, the Defendant found it to the Jinju Police Station D District Office located in the Jinju Police Station in the Jinju-si, and sent the penalty payment notice to G while taking a duty for the reason that the penalty payment notice is bad, and used it to gather the penalty payment notice to G while working in the situation on the ground that the penalty payment notice was issued, and was cut off, and used twice the chest of G due to the head.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. One copy of a notification;

1. Application of CCTV Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution prevents the execution of official duties by searching for a complaint against a disposition of notification of payment of a penalty due to an act of disturbing one’s drinking in the large belt, and assaulting a police officer, and the nature of such offense is not good.

However, the following facts are considered as favorable to the defendant: (a) the defendant reflects his crime late at the time; (b) the degree of assault by the defendant was not severe; (c) the defendant committed several offenses against the victimized police officers, and the damaged police officers were the defendant's wife; (d) the defendant did not have the same criminal history and there was no criminal history other than fines for the last twenty-five years; and (e) the fact that there was no criminal history other than fines for the last twenty-five years, etc. shall be considered as normal circumstances favorable to the defendant; and (e) the punishment shall be determined as per the order by taking into account various sentencing conditions specified in