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

On January 22, 2020, at around 21:10, the Defendant: (a) reported 112 to the effect that “A” in front of soup, “C” in Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, was frying, charge-free, and that “A male customers desire to take and take trial expenses,” and (b) the police officer affiliated with the Seoul Gwanak Police Station D District Unit E, a police officer called out after receiving a 112 report to the effect that “A male customers want to take and take trial expenses,” and the Defendant tried to take the fry to take the fry after receiving the reporter’s statement; (c) the Defendant sent home to the outside of the said soup; and (d) the police officer attempted to take the fry by stopping the police officer from getting out of the patrol car; and (d) the police officer tried to take out the frybridge by hand; and (e) the police officer tried to take out the frybridge by getting out of the fry belt.

As a result, the defendant interfered with the 112 reported case handling by police officers, protection of people's lives, bodies and property, prevention, suppression and investigation of crimes, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement concerning E and F;

1. Each investigation report (the reporter and each currency with G);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs showing the background E E, the background E photograph, and the background E;

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 ( considered as follows):

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order assaulted two police officers without any particular reason, and the degree of assault is not weak.

In addition, even though the defendant has been sentenced twice to punishment due to the same force of violence, twice a suspended sentence, and twice a fine, it shall be considered disadvantageously that the defendant committed the crime of this case.