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

On January 12, 2020, at around 01:30, the Defendant: (a) sent the drinking value to the Defendant on credit; (b) “Issnish-si B; (c) Isnish-si, with no money to pay the drinking value to E by a police officer belonging to the D Zone of the Gangseo Police Station, which was dispatched after receiving 112 a report, and solicited E to return home; and (d) I expressed his desire to read “Ise, Isar, Isar, Isar. Ise. Ise., Isar. Ise. Isar. Ise. Ise. Ise. Ise. Ise., sarbling E’s sarbling, sarbling E, and assaulted E with any other hand.

Accordingly, 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. Statement to E by the police;

1. 112 Reporting case management table;

1. Investigation report (to hear statements by the operator's telephone);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (to hear statements by telephone from a victimized police officer);

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. Circumstances unfavorable to the reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act and Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc.: The necessity of strict punishment for the obstruction of performance of official duties is required to establish a state’s legal order, and to eradicate the light of public authority; even though the defendant has been punished by a fine for the same kind of crime, circumstances favorable to the fact that the defendant committed the crime of this case: The defendant recognized and reflects the crime; the defendant did not have any record of punishment exceeding a fine; the defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, background of the crime, circumstances after the crime, and other various sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the defendant’s age, character and behavior;