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

The defendant is a household delivery center.

On February 2, 2019, the Defendant: (a) received 112 reports from C entertainment tavern C in Jeju-si; and (b) requested the Defendant to have the Defendant return home, and (c) took a bath, such as “I am son, I am son, I am son, I am son, I am son, I am son, I am son, I am son, I am son, I am son, and assaulted the above E’s shoulder at one time with the face of the above F in which I am son again requested to return home.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the police officers’ legitimate performance of their duties regarding the dispatch of 112 reported calls.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the respective Acts and subordinate statutes of E and F;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime concerned;

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

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

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

1. The degree of interference with the execution of official duties for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Act is relatively significant; while the defendant has no criminal records of the same kind or imprisonment without prison labor or any heavier punishment; the defendant's age, character and conduct, family relationship, environment, circumstances and result of the crime; and other circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case, including the circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as ordered by a comprehensive consideration.