However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On November 1, 2017, at around 00:35, the Defendant received a 112 report stating that “no taxi will take place” before the call-up of 1095 calendar No. 6 in Gyeyang-gu, Incheon, Gyeyang-gu, the Defendant sent to the scene, and heard the Defendant’s statement to the police officer B of the Incheon Gyeyang Police Station B, who belongs to the police station B of the Incheon Gyeyang Police Station B, that the Defendant returned to the scene, stating that he would leave the taxi fee and return home from the police officer of the police station B of the Incheon Gyeyang Police Station, and that the said police officer “this rings, si, si, si, si, si, si, si,” and told the said police officer to read “this rings, si’s breast at one time as a drinking, and continued to restrain the Defendant.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of duties by police officers on the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement by the police with regard to C (including D's statement);

1. E statements;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended sentence [Scope of Recommendation] In the case where the degree of obstructing the performance of official duties (i.e., interference with the performance of official duties or coercion of duties) is minor (i.e., January to August) in the mitigated area (i., January to August), [i.e., special mitigated persons] the crime of this case is committed by assaulting police officers on duty, thereby obstructing the exercise of public authority, and the nature of the crime is poor, and damage to police officers is not recovered, and it is necessary to strictly punish police officers because it is not restored. However, considering the fact that the defendant is the primary offender, the fact that the defendant is the primary offender, and the fact that his mistake is divided, it is favorable to the defendant, and it is decided as per Disposition in consideration of all the sentencing factors indicated in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive and means of the crime, result, etc.