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

On February 16, 2020, at around 02:32, the Defendant: (a) carried out a slope D belonging to the Ulsannam Police Station C District of the Ulsannam Police Station, which was called up for the handling of the case on the road front of the Nam-gu B, Ulsan-gu, and obstructed the lawful performance of duties by police officers with regard to the handling of reports by police officers, such as: (b) allowing E from the patrol vehicle to move to India; (c) allowing E from the said patrol vehicle to move to India; (d) allowing E to move to India; and (e) preventing E from getting off or going to walk off; and (e) preventing E from getting off or getting off on the front-time patrol vehicle; and (e) interfere with the legitimate performance of duties by police officers with respect to the handling of reports by 112.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Written statements prepared in D;

1. Application of the investigative report(s) and photographic (s) Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act selecting a penalty;

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

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

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: One to five years of imprisonment;

2. The scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines [decision of types] of the obstruction of performance of official duties: [Type 1] No person shall be subject to the obstruction of performance of official duties or coercion of official duties [the scope of recommended areas and recommendations] (the scope of recommended areas and recommendations] basic area, six months to one year and six months.

3. In order to establish a state order of sentencing and eradicate the light view of public authority, it is necessary to strictly punish the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties. The Defendant’s crime of obstruction of performance of official duties in this case is not less than that against the Defendant, and the Defendant’s records of punishment for the same kind of crime are less than once, etc., under the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, and the fact that the Defendant is recognized as committing the instant crime, etc., shall be taken into account under the circumstances favorable to the Defendant. However, the degree of the tangible force of the Defendant’s exercise, age, character and conduct, environment