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

On December 8, 2015, at around 05:08, the Defendant respondeded to a disturbance, such as taking a horn, while disputing the Defendant’s male movement on the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Daejeon, Daejeon, upon receiving a report from 112, the background E and policeman of the D District Police Station affiliated with the Daejeon, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Seoul, upon receiving the said report, accessed the police officer in order to verify the above reported contents, and assaulted the above E’s face at his own expense, “I peep, C,” “W,” and “W,” and assaulted the above E’s face at one time, and twice the above F face at one time.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on handling 112 reports.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statements made to F and E;

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

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Circumstances unfavorable to the reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on Suspension of Execution: Determination of a sentence that is favorable to the nature of the crime due to the assault of a police officer who performs official duties: In addition, the following circumstances are different from the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, various conditions for sentencing specified in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc.;