except that the execution of a sentence shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Around 02:00 on March 26, 2020, the Defendant: (a) had no intent or ability to pay the taxi fee in front of the Suwon-gu Office located in the Namcheon-gu, Busan; (b) was committed as if the Defendant would normally pay the taxi fee while boarding a taxi operated by the victim B (V, 70 years of age) as a customer to C-si operated by the victim B (V) and paying the taxi fee.

As above, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; (b) caused the victim to operate the taxi up to the front of the Essung Party located in Nam-gu, Busan; and (c) did not pay the taxi fee of KRW 14,880 to the victim; and (d) obtained pecuniary benefits equivalent to the same amount.

2. On March 26, 2020, the Defendant: (a) reported 112 on the street in front of the Busan Southern Police Station G Security Center located in Busan City F, Busan, the Busan Southern Police Station G District of the Busan Police Station: (b) recommended a police officer, who belongs to the Busan Southern Police Station G District, to return home to the taxi fare and to return home; (c) was her hand, and (d) continued to act as if he were her, and she was her hand, and her her kick part with her hand.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on handling 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Act and subordinate statutes to investigation report (in the order of 3,4) on the police statement B of H and investigation report (in the order of 3,00)

1. Relevant Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 136(1) of the same Act and the choice of imprisonment for the crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. There is a heavy need to exercise the force of force against police officers performing official duties with the reason of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act.

However, the fact that the defendant recognizes the crime and reflects the crime, that the degree of damage to the crime of fraud is relatively minor, that there is no same power as the fine of the first time, and that there is no other reason.