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 September 1, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 19:30 on September 1, 2015, the Defendant d and Si expenses on the grounds that the gold in the Geum-gu Busan Simb was drunkd by assault from D, the main owner of the relevant gold room, and the Defendant d and Si expenses. On September 1, 2015, the police officer F, who was on duty in the Geum-gu Police Station E district, called the police officer dispatched upon receipt of a report 112, f face f at one time, at his/her own seat, and f.g., at one hand.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the dispatch of 112 reported police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (to hear witness statements by a police officer in mobilization);

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 basic area (from June to one year and four months) (the person subject to special sentencing] [decision of sentencing] [the defendant appears to have an attitude of deceiving and opposing the defendant for committing a crime, the degree of interference with the performance of official duties, and the fact that there is no record of the same kind of crime, etc.