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 May 18, 2016, at the front point of “D” located in C at the Ssung City around 23:50 on May 18, 2016, the Defendant expressed to F of the police box affiliated with the Gyeonggi F of Police Station E in the Gyeonggi F of Police Station E, who was called to the site and tried to listen to and return to the statement after receiving a 112 report that there was a drinking value test, and expressed to G that “I have been aboard the police box of the Gyeonggi F of Police Station E, who was in charge of the handling of the report and return to the site.”

H In order to prevent the patrol vehicle from proceeding, the front shall be cut off by the second hand, and the front shall be obstructed in order to prevent the patrol vehicle from proceeding, and the front shall be cut off by the second hand, and the front shall be prevented from continuing the patrol vehicle.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers F and G 112.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. Application of statutes on field photographs;

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. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended sentence [Scope of Recommendation] Where the scope of the mitigated area (i.e., interference with the performance of official duties or coercion of duties) (i.e., January to August), (ii) the mitigated area (i.e., January to August), (ii) the degree of interference with the performance of official duties (i.e., assault, intimidation, deceptive scheme, or public duties) is minor (i.e., the decision of the sentenced sentence] the circumstances and circumstances of the Defendant’s judgment; (iii) the extent of the Defendant’s use of the crime and its damage; (iv) the degree of the Defendant’s use of the crime and its damage; (v) the Defendant’s attitude of reflectment