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

On August 16, 2015, at around 04:15, the Defendant: (a) took a look at the D convenience points located in the Namdong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, and had his employees go home from the slope F belonging to the Incheon Southern Police Station Eadong Police Station, who was called out after receiving a report of 112, and had them go home from 112; (b) taken a bath to “sprink fring, fring, fring, fring, and unfring,” and put the above slopeF to the above slopeF, and then put it back to the right side of the said slopeF, the Defendant sawd the above slopeF into the front part of the right side, which requires treatment for about three weeks.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of duties by police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases, and at the same time, inflicted an injury on the F. of the said victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. A photo of the damaged part;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a medical certificate;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order;

1. The case of obstruction of performance of official duties in the aggravated area (6-2 years to a person under special circumstances) (referring to a person under special circumstances) of category 1 of general injury (the scope of recommendation) on the sentencing criteria;

2. Determination of sentence: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime; (b) there is no record of a crime heavier than a suspended sentence; (c) the fact that the instant crime was deposited for the victimized police officer under favorable circumstances; (d) whether the police officer was removed by asking the arms of the police officer called out after receiving a report 112; and (c) the fact that the nature of the instant crime was very poor is considered in light of extenuating circumstances; and (d) the punishment as ordered is determined by taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, background and circumstances leading to the instant crime