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

On November 2, 2016, at around 06:25, the Defendant: (a) was in the main point of “D” located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, with his name-free main point and the issue of settlement of food costs; (b) was a slope F (39 years old) belonging to the Seoul Mine Police Station E box called the Defendant sent to the site after receiving a report 112, with the view that the Defendant would have the right hand hand, etc. of F one time to hear the statement on the process of the report on theft; (c) while taking the bath of “C”, the Defendant f was able to take one time at the left chest of F with the Defendant’s intention to arrest the Defendant as an act of interference with the performance of official duties.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers in criminal investigations.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officer in G;

1. 112 Reported case handling lists and investigation reports;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing credit cards photographs;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended sentence [the scope of recommendation] The basic area (f.g., interference with the performance of official duties and coercion of official duties) (f., June - 1) (f., June - 4) of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act shall be subject to criticism in that the police officers dispatched for the reason that the defendant could not understand, but the decision shall be made as per the disposition in consideration of all kinds of sentencing conditions such as the following: (a) the police officers dispatched for the reason that the defendant could not have been understood; (b) the police officer appears to have committed the instant crime in a lump