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

On May 4, 2014, at around 01:26, the Defendant committed assault by the police officer, such as: (a) hearing the statement of damage by the police officer, the police officer, and (b) taking advantage of the police officer’s body of police officer, following the Defendant’s 112 report on the C convenience store located in Pyeongtaek-si B on the road; (b) hearing the statement of damage to the police officer; and (c) taking an emergency arrest of the police officer to the charge of rape, the Defendant committed assaulting the police officer, such as: (a) taking the warrant; (b) taking the warrant or the warrant; (c) taking it back; and (d) taking the warrant or the warrant; (d) taking it back; and (e) taking advantage of the police officer’s body, taking the police officer’s arms as his hand; and (e) taking the police officer’s body into consideration.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the police officer's legitimate execution of duties concerning 112 reporting processing and emergency arrest.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each statement of H, E, and F;

1. Application of statutes to photographs of victimized police officers;

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;

1. The Defendant’s assertion regarding the Defendant’s assertion that Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act was alleged to the effect that the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder, such as being drunk at the time of the instant crime, by failing to memory the details of the crime, etc., and thus, it is acknowledged that the Defendant was under the influence of breath at the time of the instant crime. However, in light of the background leading up to the instant crime, method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., it is difficult to view that the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time

Reasons for sentencing

1. The sentencing guidelines are as follows: (a) the balance of recommendations for the sentencing guidelines [decision of type] the obstruction of performance of official duties, the obstruction of performance of official duties/performance of duties (type 1) [the scope of recommendations] by imprisonment for six months or by imprisonment for one year and four months;