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

On July 9, 2019, at around 02:05, the Defendant took the Defendant’s prescription stating that “I have no reason to believe that I would have reported it, and why I would have no reason to report it at the hospital,” and “I would like to go to the face of C with the Defendant’s hand, by displaying his hand inside the patrol window,” and assaulting C with the Defendant’s secret. In addition, I would like to say, “I would have faced with the face of another person. I would like to go to the face of another person.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning 112 reporting handling duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. C Application of police statements and investigation reporting statutes to C;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The Defendant, on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, committed an obstacle to the smooth enforcement of the law by exercising his/her motive and force on police officers who perform official duties.

The nature of the crime is not easy.

However, it is judged as above in light of the following: (a) the Defendant had no criminal records or significant criminal records and reflects his or her mistake in depth; (b) the motive and progress of the act of obstructing the performance of official duties of this case; (c) the degree of damage caused thereby; and (d) the Defendant’s age, character, conduct, intelligence and environment