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

On December 17:30 on December 2015, 2015, the Defendant was requested to pay taxi expenses and return home from E and F, a police officer belonging to the Pyeongtaek-gu Police Station D branch called up to 112 reported and called up for the payment of taxi expenses.

Accordingly, the above police officers “I am saw this dog, I am am feas, I am feas, I am feas, I am am feas with the floor of the above police officers, and assaulted the chest part of the above police officers F once.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on 112 reporting management work.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court (the second public trial date);

1. Application of the law of the police statement protocol to F;

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

1. Determination on the application of the sentencing guidelines of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the suspended sentence: The scope of recommended sentencing guidelines of applicable O: consideration of all the general circumstances, including the fact that the damage inflicted by police officers of the basic area (from June to April) is not serious in the scope of punishment of Type 1 (Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties and Compelling of Duties).