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 October 31, 2015, around 00:20 on October 31, 2015, the Defendant: (a) received 112 report from a customer, and sent to the site, and received a demand for returning home from E in the circumstances where the police box affiliated with the Seoul Dongdaemun Police Station D, Seoul, which was called the “high police officer,” and assaulted the above E’s C’s coke part, walking a bridge, walking a bridge.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the prevention of crimes by police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of police statement protocol to E;

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 suspended execution;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act / [the scope of recommended punishment] There is no basic area (from June to January 1) (the person subject to special sentencing) [the decision of sentence] of the basic area (from June to April 4) (the person subject to special sentencing] [the decision of sentence] reflects the defendant's wrong, the first offender is the first offender, and the defendant's occupation and living relationship are determined as per the order.