except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On December 29, 2018, at around 12:46, the Defendant argued that “A (one person) who had drinking alcohol together within the Babel, had been drinking together, and was drinking together within the Babel, and that E, a slope belonging to the D District Unit of the Jeonnam Police Station D District, which was called out after receiving a report 112 on the day when he was called, called the Defendant as the perpetrator, was called up by the above C, and moved to the Defendant on the first floor, getting on board the elevator, and moving to the first floor.”

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing the 112 Reporting Case Handling Table;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor concerning the crime;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the Suspension of Execution (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Article 62 (1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution (Article 62 (1) of the Police Officers who received juvenile protective disposition or suspension of indictment several times for a crime related to violence, and Article 112 of the Act on the Suspension of Execution does not seem to be less vulnerable to obstructing the performance of duties by exercising violence against a police officer who conducts handling 112 reported cases;