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

On October 24, 2018, the Defendant, at around 04:21, at the Daejeon Dong-gu, “Csing shop” room No. 4, the Defendant: (a) 112 reported that the Defendant interfered with the drinking business, and sent to the Daejeon East-gu, Daejeon Police Station D District D Zone D (48 years old) called “the police officers E (48 years old) of the Daejeon East-gu, Daejeon, Police Station: (b) asked questions about the circumstances of the instant case; and (c) was under the influence of alcohol; and (d) without any justifiable reason, she embling the Defendant into a special unit, with his son’s mack and knick with his son’s hand.”

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A written statement of F and E;

1. Three copies of the work log in the D District and the report log 12;

1. Application of the CD 1 statute

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 punishment of Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Act on the ground of the sentencing of Article 62-2 of the same Act on the part of a police officer who is performing official duties is not less than the nature of the crime, but not less appropriate from the victim.

Provided, That the sentence shall be determined as per the order in consideration of the facts against the defendant, the age of the defendant, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, etc.