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

On September 28, 2014, at around 18:50, the Defendant: (a) received a report from 112 on the street of “C” in front of a restaurant, “C,” which was located in Silung-si B, and demanded to present an identification card after calculating it from the slope E belonging to the D District of Silung Police Station, which was called “C,” and (b) the said E, “I am released from the inside and out of the house”, “I am the police, whether the width son is the police, not money,” and “I am 3-4 times at the left part of the said E,” and (b) the said E, upon arresting the Defendant in a flagrant offender, resisting him, and interfere with the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties concerning the handling of a flagrant offender and the arrest of a flagrant offender.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police interrogation protocol of the accused and E;

1. Each police statement of the F, E, and G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to notify departments related to the reporting of 112 Incident of photographs and copies of work logs;

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

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

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Probation Criminal Act include the following: (a) the Defendant interfered with the execution of duties by assaulting a uniform police officer; (b) the Defendant has a criminal record of the same kind of violence; and (c) other circumstances revealed in the records.