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

On June 24, 2014, at around 23:40, the Defendant: (a) received a report of assaulting C, who is one’s own female living together, and received personal information, etc. from E from the police officer belonging to the Yangsan Police Station D commander of the Yangsan Police Station, who was called for, and asked E, of why he was asked; and (b) asked the reported E about why he was “hy, why he was walked, hys, hys, hys, hys, hys, hys, hys, hys, hys, etc.; (b) hys the police life; (c) hys, hys, hys, hys, and hys, hys, and hys.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning 112 report processing.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on investigation reporting;

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 reason for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Social Service Order Criminal Act [Scope of Recommendation] The basic area of the obstruction of performance of official duties (6-1-4 months) [decision of sentence] on April 10, 2013, despite the fact that the Ulsan District Court issued a summary order of KRW 3 million for the obstruction of performance of official duties, it is not good to repeat the crime by committing a crime. However, the above fine has no record of crime other than the above fine, and it is against the defendant's mistake, and the sentencing materials on the records, such as the defendant's age, occupation, home environment, personality and conduct, etc., shall be determined as per the disposition.