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

On June 1, 2019, at around 00:55, the Defendant received a report on joint response from Seongbuk-gu Seoul building, 119, that the Defendant’s non-scam is not easy, and confirmed that the status of the Defendant, who was seated in the fourth floor of the said building, together with emergency medical services workers, was in a state of scam, rather than a heart stop, the Defendant used the elevator, sent the Defendant to the first floor with the Defendant, and then sent the said police officer “scamdd, scamd,” at the same time. On the ground of the foregoing, the Defendant arrested the Defendant on one occasion at the left part of the said police officer, and, on the other, arrested the Defendant on two more occasions as a flagrant offender.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the maintenance of public order of police officers and legitimate execution of duties concerning arrest of flagrant offenders.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (the relative investigation of 119 first responders);

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is that the defendant's use of violence against a police officer who performs legitimate official duties should be subject to criticism.

However, in consideration of the fact that there is no criminal power against the defendant, that the defendant repents his/her own mistake and again does not repeat the same mistake, and that the defendant seems to have left as an contingent crime of this case, the punishment of the defendant shall be determined.