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

On October 20, 2020, the Defendant 119 reported that he was under the influence of alcohol in front of the convenience store C in Dongbcheon-si B, Dongbcheon-si, and called for a joint response to fire fighting, and she gets a breath from E and F of the Dongban Police Station D police box affiliated with E and F of the Dongban Police Station where he was called for a breath, and her seated on the floor of the required mountain basin. After the above breath of the Defendant her her home, the Defendant her flabed on the floor, with the Defendant’s flabing of her home, and the Defendant her flabed on the her hand, with the Defendant’s her hand, called “wek flab kb kb kb kb kb kb kb k

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of official duties by police officers who perform duties concerning the prevention of crimes and the maintenance of order.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. 112 Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes of the Table for Reporting Processing;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The conditions favorable to the defendant among the grounds for sentencing);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order;

1. Scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines [type determination] Crimes impeding the performance of official duties: [Class 1] No interference with the performance of official duties/no forced [no person subject to special sentencing] [the territory of recommendations and the scope of punishment] basic area, six months through one year and six months;

2. The crime of this case committed by the Defendant, who was sentenced to a sentence, prevents a police official from performing his/her duties in a manner that prevents a police official’s legitimate performance of duties, and thus, requires a strict punishment for a crime against public authority in order to establish the State’s legal order and eradicate a light of the public authority. As such, the circumstances and nature of the crime are not less than that of the crime, and even if the Defendant had been punished twice as a fine for interference with the performance of his/her duties, he/she again committed the crime

However, the defendant recognizes his mistake.