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

On January 1, 2018, at around 20:0, the Defendant asked the Defendant questions on the background of the instant case by the police officer D belonging to the Gansan Police Station C District, who was dispatched to the site after having received a report on the occurrence of home violence at around B 501 at around 20:0, 2018, bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch

D’s face face side was received three times in E-mail while taking a bath for v. S. D’s d’.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on handling 112 reports.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. Relevant Article 136 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. The criteria for sentencing for the reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended sentence [the scope of recommendations] The following conditions of sentencing as shown in the records, such as the defendant's age, occupation, sex, family relationship, and circumstances before and after the crime, shall be comprehensively taken into account in the basic area (from June to June, 1), the sentence of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the scope of recommendations] interference with the execution of public records.

- The recognition and reflection of the crime that there is a history of punishment for a fine once for assault as long as it is necessary to severely punish a crime that undermines the function of the State by nullifyinging legitimate exercise of public authority.