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

On February 4, 2018, the Defendant: (a) around 22:35, at a store located in Gyeongnam-gun B; and (b) at a store located in Gyeongnam-gun B, the Defendant reported 112, and her hand, who was solicited to return home from E in the circumstances in which the police station affiliated with the police station, called for the Defendant, called “a failure by the principal owner,” was supbling the part of E one time, and was supposed with the flab.

As a result, the defendant assaulted police officers and interfered with their legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Police statements made to E and F;

1. Investigation reports and internal investigation reports (to be determined that the Defendant was not in a mental or physical loss or mental and physical weakness under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime);

Application of Statutes

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

1. Although there is a history of violence against the defendant for the reason of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act in the suspended sentence, the sentence is determined as per the disposition, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the defendant's age, the degree of violence, the motive and circumstance of the crime, and the scope of recommended punishment by sentencing guidelines (not including the basic area of interference with the performance of official duties, in January and June, and there are no special reasons for mitigation) and other factors, such as the defendant's age, the degree of violence, the motive and circumstance of the crime, and the scope of recommended punishment by sentencing guidelines