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

At around 17:40 on February 23, 2020, the Defendant: (a) asked questions as to whether or not the Defendant was assaulted by D, and whether or not the Defendant was sexually committed by D, the Ulsan East Police Station C District at the Ulsan Police Station C District, which was dispatched by the 112 report; and (b) asked D, “C, in the mind of having a stimule, v. n.,” and used D’s bath with both hand, and tighted D’s breast.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported affairs.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to Chapter 4 of this Decree to internal investigation reports (verification of images taken by police officers with a motion picture), 25 photographs, internal investigation reports (Attachment of the conversation contents of the motion picture), four photographs by capturing up the motion picture, and one CD for video storage;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act selecting a penalty;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order;

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: One to five years of imprisonment;

2. The scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines [decision of types] of the obstruction of performance of official duties: [Type 1] No person shall be subject to the obstruction of performance of official duties or coercion of official duties [the scope of recommended areas and recommendations] (the scope of recommended areas and recommendations] basic area, six months to one year and six months.

3. In order to establish a state order of sentencing and eradicate the light view of public authority, it is necessary to strictly punish the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties. The Defendant’s crime of obstruction of performance of official duties in this case is not less than that against the Defendant. The Defendant’s crime of obstruction of official duties is not less than that against the Defendant, and the Defendant’s records, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence