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

At around 02:22 on August 23, 2018, the Defendant: (a) received a report of 112 pertaining to an in-take type in the “C” singing box located in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun; and (b) prevented the Defendant from carrying the Defendant, who was the victim, from carrying the Defendant’s day to G; (c) appears to have been drinking once a week as the victim would turn back to G; (d) again, the victim would stop back to G; and (e) then, the victim’s nose was sold at one time by drinking.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases, and at the same time, the Defendant saw the victim as a cryp for about two weeks of medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Each investigation report and internal investigation report;

1. Answers to requests for cooperation with investigation;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Articles 136 (1) and 257 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes (the crimes of obstruction of the performance of official duties and the crimes of injury in the market, and the punishment prescribed for the crimes of grave injury shall be imposed);

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (hereinafter “the grounds for the remaining sentence”), which is favorable to the defendant;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on the grounds of the order to provide community service and attend lecture shows considerable violence, such as the nature and nature of the crime and the attitude of the crime, and it is not good to commit the crime, and the degree of interference with this case’s assault and official duties is not weak, and the responsibility for the crime was heavy, since the police officer suffered bodily injury due to this case’s crime, it was not agreed with or was not prepared until now, and even if there was a history of punishment for the same kind of violent crime, the possibility of its criticism was not written, etc., against the defendant, or the defendant recognized his own crime.