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 November 5, 2016, at around 00:30 on November 5, 2016, the Defendant did not pay meal costs with drinking and food at the “D” main points of the operation, Nam-gu, Namdong-gu, Namcheon-gu, Seoul, and was disputing with the above C. He was requested to pay the meal costs from the policeman F belonging to the police box affiliated with the 112 police station in the Yannam-gu, Yannam Police Station, which was dispatched upon receipt of the report, and returned to the Defendant, and the above F, “this f.b., so f., f., f., ch.

To see, she expressed that she is "at the same time," and expressed that she would drink the F once a week.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officials concerning the handling of 112 reported duties by assault.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. C’s statement;

1. Application of the statutes on photographs;

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution [Scope of Recommendation] There is no person [the person subject to special sentencing] in the basic area (from June to January 4] (the person subject to special sentencing] (the decision of sentencing] unfavorable under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act: The defendant's age, sex behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime are considered to be considered in consideration of the defendant's age, sex, motive and consequence of the crime, etc.