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 January 4, 2016, 04:25, the Defendant, “C,” which was located in Sinsan City B, was “C” in front of the Dosan-si B’s Dob, and the Defendant solicited a private person to return home by a police box affiliated with the Dosan Police Station D, which was dispatched to the site after receiving a report of 112, and then sent to the site, the Defendant: (a) threatened the Defendant, by hand, the Defendant, with the desire to return home; and (b) assaulted the e by her hand, to go home by drinking while doing so.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to field photographs and damaged parts of the photograph;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of punishment for the crime;

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act for the suspended sentence [the scope of the recommended sentence] The grounds for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act shall be determined within the scope of the recommended sentence, taking into account all the circumstances, such as the following: (a) the basic area (f) category 1 (fi.e., interference with the performance of official duties and coercion of duties) (f., June to one year); (b) the Defendant’s decision is against his/her wrongness; (c) there is no history of punishment heavier than the suspended sentence due to the same kind of crime; and (d) the Defendant’s age,