However, the enforcement of the sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

At around 00:40 on December 30, 2017, the Defendant: (a) expressed a statement on the details of the report to the instant police officer, who was a police officer belonging to the Ulsan-gu Police Station E division, who was dispatched to the site after receiving a report on 112; (b) the Defendant: (c) expressed a great voice, such as “I will see, “I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made to D, F, and A by the police;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of the CD and the Act and subordinate statutes on the Handling of Reporting 112

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. The sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act does not constitute a criminal offense for the reason of the suspended sentence, and the degree of assault exercised by police officers is relatively minor, and the police officers are remarkably divided, taking into account the following factors: the Defendant’s age, occupation, sex, sex, family relationship, living environment, circumstances leading to the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., and the sentence as ordered shall be determined by taking into account the following factors: (a) the execution thereof shall be suspended.