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

1. On July 7, 2020, from around 03:00 to around 03:50 of the same day, the Defendant: (a) intending to enter the “Sari” operated by the victim C in Sinried City B; (b) intending to enter the state of drinking; and (c) intending to control the victim from the victim with a guide that “I want to enter the state of drinking,” and (d) he expressed the victim’s desire to “I wish to see the victim’s “Sari, I would like to see the Defendant’s back at the seat of the sari and the four sari;” and (b) obstructed the victim’s sari or operation by force by taking advantage of force.

2. The Defendant continued to avoid disturbance even though he received a disturbance, such as the date, time, place, etc. mentioned in paragraph (1) and received a report from the head of the Gyeonggi City Police Station D District E who called out after receiving the report, and received a removal from the head of the Gyeonggi City Police Station D District E on the same day, and the above E notified the Defendant to arrest the Defendant as a flagrant offender at around 03:56 on the same day, and assaulted the Defendant at one time on the top of the damaged hand with the top of the above E, by making the suddenization.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning 112 reports.

Summary of Evidence

1. The police's protocol of statement E in part of the defendant;

1. C and F’s written investigation report (on-site CCTV editing), CCTV-cap photographs (the defendant has no fact at the time of a police officer’s bucking, but the facts charged can be fully acknowledged according to the police officer’s and witness’s statements) apply to statutes

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 136 of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment for the crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. A police officer who continued to commit a crime even though the degree of interference with the reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is not somewhat weak, while continuing to commit a crime despite the control of a police officer who was called out.