However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date of the final judgment.

Around 00:52 on December 25, 2015, the Defendant: (a) went on a patrol vehicle in front of the D Zone C, which was located at the D Zone C, and then, (b) went into the district unit, and (c) went into the Defendant, and (d) went into the district unit, and (e) went into the Defendant, and (e) went into the district unit, and (e) took a bath to “Fech feas, feas, feas, feas., feas., feas, feas., farb.”

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of each police protocol of statement to E and F;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act ( considered favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing following the suspended sentence);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order;

1. The sentencing factors that are disadvantageous to the decision of the second sentence sentence that there are no special penal person in the basic area (from June to January), the scope of the obstruction of performance of official duties according to the sentencing guidelines: The crime of this case is committed against the police officer in the performance of official duties, and the nature of the crime of this case is not minor, and the sentencing factors that are favorable to the fact that there are the records of punishment of fines for the same kind of crime: the defendant does not want the punishment of the victimized public official; the defendant is against the defendant; the defendant is against the defendant; and all kinds of sentencing conditions shown in the arguments and records of this case, including the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive of the crime, etc., shall be

Public Prosecution Rejection Parts

1. The Defendant, at around 00:42 on December 25, 2015, was charged with the charge of committing an act of 00:42, the following acts: (a) the Defendant is going to the public, among the fess, on the ground that the Victim E is asked to ask the Defendant’s personal information from a police officer belonging to the D District Unit of the Dado Police Station, who was called out after having received a report on the drinking-value issue in front of a G cafeteria located in C, and was called out, for the reason that the Victim E is asked to ask the Defendant’s personal information.