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

At around 23:20 on December 5, 2018, the Defendant: (a) received 112 report to the effect that a drunkly drunk person C frighted, and received a demand for returning home from E in the circumstances surrounding the district unit of the original police station D District, which called “Ise . Ise .Ise .Ise . Ise .Ise . Ise am. Isle am. Isle am. Isle am. Isle am. Isle am. Isle am. Isle am.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (video storage CDs);

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

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment for one month to five years;

2. Scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines [decision of type] of the obstruction of performance of official duties or coercion of duties (special sponsers): Where the degree of violence, intimidation and deception is minor (the scope of the recommended area and the recommended punishment): Reduction area, one month to eight months of imprisonment.

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and one year of suspended sentence; and