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

On May 24, 2018, at around 01:43, the Defendant was urged to return home from the slope C, etc. belonging to the police station in the same year, where he was dispatched after receiving the report of 112 from the residents by drinking alcohol in front of the fourth apartment complex located in the main apartment site located in the Dong-si, 5-ro, the main apartment site in the same year.

Accordingly, the Defendant expressed the above police officer’s bath that “I am out,” and recommended the Defendant to return home again by the slope C, and the Defendant assaulted the Defendant, such as “I am out, saw, I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am.” on the cell phone used by the Defendant in the slope C’s chest.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. C’s statement;

1. On-site photographs;

1. 112 Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing the table of reported case settlement;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Circumstances unfavorable to the reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act: The circumstances favorable to the defendant's assaulting a police officer in the course of performing official duties are not good: The defendant repents his/her own crime and reflects his/her crime; and the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive and means of the crime, circumstances before and after the crime, etc., and other circumstances that constitute the factors for sentencing of this case, such as the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, motive