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.

B. On December 10, 2016, around 22:13, the Defendant: (a) heard the circumstances of the instant case against the instant persons related to the police officers E, who were called up after receiving the report 112, and did not receive the instant case; (b) did not want them to receive the instant case; and (c) did not receive the instant case to the police officers, the Defendant did not receive the instant case.

“Along with the foregoing paragraph, the upper part of the police officer E was tightly pushed off one time by hand, and the lower part of the police officer F was tightly pushed off to F, “F,” and the face of F, one time by drinking, of a police officer.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to E and F;

1. On-site photographs and photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation;

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

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, including observation of protection and community service order;

1. In the case of ordinary concurrent crimes with the sentencing criteria, the sentencing criteria shall not apply, but shall be referred to in determining specific sentencing criteria;

[Scope of Recommendation] Class 1 (Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties and Coercive Conduct) area (1 to 8 months) mitigation area (a person with special mitigation) is not subject to punishment

2. Crimes that interfere with the performance of official duties by police officers, such as this case, are not very good in that the nature of such crimes is very good in that they interfere with the desire or pride of victimized police officers in their service and cause damage to them ultimately return to the general public.

In addition, in light of the defendant's attitude of disregarding public authority, etc. at the time of the crime of this case, it is also true that it is necessary to seriously punish the defendant, and thus, the defendant's lack of compliance consciousness.

However, this case.