However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On April 11, 2016, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol on the front of B in the military on the roads prior to the 20:50 on April 11, 2016, the police officers, such as the police officer D belonging to the police box of the military police station called up after receiving a report of 112 by the fire officers.

“Along with the fact that the Defendant was attempted to influent, fluent D, and brush D, the Defendant was tightly pushed down two times with both hands while taking a bath.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on the handling of 112 reports and the protection of persons in need of assistance.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statements made to D;

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution [the scope of recommendations given in the sentencing guidelines] - The scope of interference with the performance of official duties - The mitigation area (one month to eight months) - The special mitigation person: the degree of violence, intimidation, and deceptive scheme is minor (decision of sentence] - The degree of violence, intimidation, and deceptive scheme is minor, and there is no record of criminal punishment between the last ten years.