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 June 10, 2017, the Defendant did not pay a charge for singing in Pyeongtaek-si B at around 01:15.

upon receipt of the report of Defendant C 112, and the police officer affiliated with D of the Pyeongtaek-gu Police Station to check the details of the report from the police officer E to the site, the end of the business.

In order to hear the answer that it is difficult to accept the request from the police officer to confirm the above sing CCTV closed by the door, it shall be put in the door on the day of opening.

“Abbandoning” and assaulting the chest part of the horse E with blue blue with blue blue, etc.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of F’s written Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (within the scope of the recommended sentencing criteria) of the suspended sentence;

1. One category (Interference with the execution of official duties and coercion of duties) in the mitigation area (one month - August) of the sentencing criteria; and

2. Determination of sentence has no particular criminal history (only once a fine is imposed in 1988), it appears to be contingent crimes, the degree of assault is minor, the police officer who wishes to punish the defendant, and other various sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments of change, such as the background of the instant crime, the age of the defendant, and sexual conduct, shall be determined as ordered by the order.