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.

On October 25, 2016, the Defendant: (a) b2:30 around 22:30 on the alleyway near north-gu, Mapo-si; and (b) Mana-gu, the Defendant 112 reported by neighboring residents, and received a report, and called “Woos request to return home from D, E, etc., a police officer affiliated with D and E, who was called the police officer of the police station north-gu, called “Woos request to return home”; (b) The Defendant interfered with the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties regarding the handling of 112 reported cases at one time.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution [Scope of Recommendation] There is no person who has the basic area (referring to six months of imprisonment or one year and four months of imprisonment) (referring to a person who is subject to special sentencing] of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the period of punishment): The same type of criminal records and other circumstances that are favorable to the fact that there are six times of violent criminal records: Violence is committed once; there is no past record of punishment exceeding a fine; and there is no past record of punishment for the same type of criminal records due to the same type of crime, and there is no particular record of punishment thereafter, other than the above circumstances, various factors of sentencing and the scope of recommendations and the scope of punishment recorded in the records, such as Defendant age, sexual behavior, environment, and conditions before and after the crime.