However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. On July 1, 2017, the Defendant who interfered with his/her duties: (a) on the ground that he/she requested the Defendant that the injured party would have made a prompt demand while drinking and drinking in a restaurant operated by the injured party C, Daegu Northern-gu, Daegu, Daegu, about 13:30 on July 1, 2017.

“Along with sound,” and by not later than 17:39 the same day, the disturbance interfered with the victim’s restaurant business.

2. On July 1, 2017, the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties: (a) the police police officer E, etc., who was dispatched to the site after receiving a report from 112 that a drunk person was drunk on the front side of Daegu Northern-gu B, Daegu-gu; and (b) requested the Defendant to return home to the Defendant, the Defendant’s bitbit of bit of a bitbit of a bit of a bitch.

At the time of call, I call the position of "I am am swe am swe am swe swe am swe am swe am we am swe am we am we am swe am swe am we am we am we am we am we am we am we am am we am

The term "stick ....." means "stick .....", and it was prevented that the hand will be cut in front of the patrol vehicle, and the hand will be kept in front of the patrol vehicle, and that the patrol vehicle will not proceed down later than the patrol vehicle to go back.

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 each police statement protocol to E, C, and F;

1. Relevant Article 314 of the Criminal Act, Articles 314(1) and 136(1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment for a crime;

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. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution shows that the Defendant’s assaulted to the police officer following the crime of interference with the instant business is weak to the Defendant’s awareness of compliance with the law, and it is necessary to punish the Defendant with strict punishment.

However, the defendant's agreement with the victim C, and criminal punishment exceeding the fine has been imposed.