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

At around 01:00 on August 5, 2015, the Defendant: (a) arrested the police officers belonging to the Mapo Police Station E box called up after receiving a report by assaulting C’s wife D; and (b) arrested him as a flagrant offender from the police officers belonging to the Mapo Police Station E box of the Mapo Police Station who was called up upon receiving a request for support during the arrest of the flagrant offender; and (c) obstructed the Defendant’s legitimate execution of duties concerning the arrest of the police officers in the act of committing a flagrant offense by assaulting G, a police officer belonging to the F Zone of the Mapo Police Station, who was called up upon receiving a request

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning G police statements;

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

1. The reason for the sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., circumstances that are considered as the reason for sentencing) of the suspended sentence [the scope of recommendation] The basic area (f.i.e., obstruction of performance of duties/performance of duties) of category 1 (f., June or April) of the obstruction of performance of official duties (f.g., the decision of sentence] of the defendant under the influence of alcohol [f., the decision of sentence] in light of the fact that the defendant committed the crime of this case interfering with the execution of official duties by obstructing police officers from performing their duties and assaulting police officers several times without good cause despite the restriction of police officers several times under the influence of alcohol, the defendant is selected to be sentenced to imprisonment in light of the fact that the defendant is against his mistake and has no criminal record of the same kind, and the degree of the obstruction of performance of official duties is relatively heavy, as well as the fact that