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

On August 12, 2017, the Defendant, at Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C India on August 21:10, 2017, after receiving a report from 112 to the effect that a drunk person would take part in India, and recommended the Defendant to have his/her returning home, the Defendant expressed his/her desire to “in the case of a police officer, a police officer, a shot light, a shot light, a police shot light,” and assaulted the above F F’s back-to-face breathm in order to arrest the Defendant as a current offender on two occasions at the hand.

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. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statements made to F and E;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Circumstances unfavorable to the reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act: A punishment shall be determined as ordered in consideration of the facts that the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties is highly likely to be punished by severe punishment by the act of light of public authority and disturbing legal order: The first offender, the reflects on the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, etc., and other factors for sentencing indicated in the record;