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

At around 21:45 on February 27, 2020, the Defendant: (a) at the C Administrative Welfare Center located in Seogu Daegu-gu C, Daegu-gu, the Defendant: (b) 112 reported that the Defendant was sicking the fluort glass in his hand, and sent back to the site after receiving a report that the Defendant was fluoring a disturbance, such as a hand-time car, etc.; and (c) on the ground that, “Is the Defendant, fluor, and fluor, fluor, returned home to the site,” the Defendant “Is the fluor, fluor, and fluor, fluor, fluor of the E’s chest, who was sent to the site, was called as “Is the Defendant’s fluort, and fluor, fluor, fluor,” and f

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statement to E;

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 (i.e., penance and non-power of the same kind) of the suspended execution;