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

On May 28, 2020, the Defendant: (a) reported 112 that there is a customer who frighting to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on handling 112 reported cases and maintaining public order.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. A report on internal investigation (related to field conditions, etc.);

1. Investigation report (related to the attachment of criminal images and photographs of a suspect), the application of CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act are as follows: (a) the Defendant, under the influence of alcohol, took a bath to the police officer; and (b) assaulted the police officer to walk.

Considering the form of conduct, the nature of the crime is not very good.

However, in consideration of the initial crime, the execution of punishment shall be suspended on the condition of community service order.

In addition, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and result of the crime, and the conditions of all the sentencing shown in the arguments in this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, shall be determined in the same manner as the order.