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

On July 30, 2019, at around 21:32, the Defendant, at the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju, Gwangju, Seo-gu, Gwangju, a mobile phone theft report, asked about the circumstances under which the Gwangju, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Police Station D Boxes affiliated with the cell phone, and the circumstances and personal details, etc. of the Defendant’s possession of the cell phone that was damaged by the police officer F, and attempted to arrest G as a quasi-flagrant offender of larceny, and the police officer attempted to take a lock in order to arrest G as a quasi-flagrant offender of larceny, and attempted to cut off F’s working clothes by hand from behind the police officer F, etc.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of 112 reported cases and the prevention, suppression and investigation of crimes by police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the police protocol of statement to F;

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

1. Consideration of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act - The grounds for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution - The fact that the defendant has recognized his mistake, that the defendant has agreed with