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

On March 14, 2018, the Defendant was working on the road in front of the Celves located in Gyeonggi-si B, Gyeonggi-do.

'Around 112, the Defendant, who was under the influence of alcohol by a slope E belonging to the police box of the Pyeongtaek-gu Police Station, called the Defendant who was under the influence of alcohol, was under the influence of alcohol, and then recommended the Defendant to return to the guest room he was under the influence of the Defendant, and the Defendant stated that “Ne inevitably she may die, she would have to do so, so she would have to do so, she will do so.” The Defendant, who was under the influence of the Defendant, was under the influence of the Defendant, and threatened the Defendant to see the said E’s throth, fl, drinking, flick, and boomed under the above and below.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the prevention, suppression and investigation of police officers' crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the statement protocol to E;

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

1. It is so decided as per Disposition by comprehensively taking into account all the factors of sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, including the following: (a) the fact that the reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution is due to the mistake of the Defendant’s act; (b) the degree of interference with the performance of official duties by the Defendant’s act does not seem to be serious; (c) the Defendant