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

On October 6, 2017, around 05:10, the Defendant opened a door after receiving a report from the Defendant’s office at Sacheon-si C 1303, around 04:49 on the same day, to the effect that “the domestic violence is doubtful, such as the flasing of ops at the above location, the sound of the article department, etc.,” which was called upon 112, the Defendant was sent from the police officers E belonging to the police station of Sacheon-si Police Station, and the police officers F, to check the safety of women inside the above Defendant’s office, but to request the flasing door.

E intended to enter the Defendant’s house in order to confirm the state of the victim, and the Defendant committed assault, such as flabing, flabing, flabing, and flabing the chest twice.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on the investigation of crimes of domestic violence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each legal statement of witness F and E;

1. 112 A list of reported cases;

1. Grounds for conviction of on-site photographs;

1. Article 9-4 of the Act on the Prevention of Domestic Violence and Protection, etc. of Victims provides that “A judicial police officer shall, upon receipt of a report on a crime of domestic violence, send it to the scene of domestic violence without delay,” and Article 9-2 of the same Act provides that “A judicial police officer dispatched pursuant to paragraph (1) may enter the reported scene or the relevant place for the investigation of the case to protect the victim and investigate relevant persons or ask questions to relevant persons,” and Article 9-4 of the same Act provides that “A domestic violence offender shall not interfere with the performance of his/her duties, such as refusing on-site investigations by a judicial police officer pursuant to

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court in this case, the defendant brought a disturbance due to a large noise with G, a person living together with G, having a large amount of dispute, and rupture, etc., and the fact that G had a sound, and that neighboring residents reported 112 to the effect that domestic violence is doubtful.