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 April 5, 2017, at around 08:11, the Defendant: (a) sent to Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, on the ground that C was given notice of penalty of KRW 50,000 to the Defendant during the police box attached to the Sungdong Police Station B, Sungdong Police Station B, who was called after receiving a report of KRW 112 by the Defendant’s act of disturbance of drinking around 204, and called up, the Defendant: (b) obstructed C from going to the patrol vehicle; and (c) assault C’s left-hand flash on the left-hand flash.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning the handling of 112 reports.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of the police statement protocol law to C

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The reasoning for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act / [the scope of recommended punishment] The basic area (from June to one year and six months) of Class 1 (Interference with the performance of official duties and coercion of duties) [the decision of sentence] The crime of this case is not good to be committed by assaulting the police officer in uniform, the fact that there was a record of punishment for the same kind of crime, and other reasons such as the defendant's age, sex, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., for the following reasons.