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

At around 02:10 on September 23, 2018, the Defendant: (a) mar, in front of Maart-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu; (b) Maju-gu, the Defendant 112 reported by the Defendant, and obstructed the Defendant’s affairs, such as the handling of the instant report by the police officer, by assaulting the Defendant, such as smuggling- and F’s chest, who was sent to the site upon receiving a report from 112.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement concerning E and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing the 112 Reporting Case Handling List;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime concerned;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. In order to eradicate favorable circumstances such as the fact that there is no record of the same kind of crime for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act, and there is no record of severe punishment exceeding fines, and that there is a need for strict punishment for the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties even after receiving a warning to the police officer in charge of performing official duties that violence may be arrested as a flagrant offender even after the receipt of the warning that the crime may be arrested as a flagrant offender, the defendant's age, character and behavior, motive for the crime, and the degree of the tangible force of the defendant's exercise of official duties, etc., the punishment as shown in the order shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, including the defendant's age, character and behavior