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

The defendant is a person who lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental illness, such as an on-site illness.

At around 15:12 on April 26, 2019, the Defendant received 112 a report that “a person with a mental illness has come to go to the house and bullying at the house” and recommended a police officer to receive hospital treatment from E and F, a police officer of the Seocho-gu Police Station D police box, who was dispatched to the site and sent to the site, discovered the 119 first vehicle to arrive at the site while refusing to do so, and the Defendant purchased the 119 first vehicle to arrive at the site, and the 15th of the 19 second of the 19 second of the 19 second of the 19 second of the 19 second of the 19 second of the 19 second of the 19 second of the 19th of the 19th of the 2nd of the 15th of the 2019.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the receipt and handling of reports and the prevention of crimes by police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police statement of E and F;

1. G statements;

1. Two copies of a photograph of the damaged part of the police officer;

1. Investigation Report - Telephone communications of the suspect's week;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion to the effect that the act was self-defense against illegal performance of official duties is without merit, in light of the circumstances at the time of the crime of this case, which can be acknowledged through each of the above evidences. Meanwhile, in light of the defendant's mental illness degree, the circumstances leading to the crime of this case, etc., it is recognized that the defendant suffered from the defendant at the time of the crime of this case had weak ability to discern things or make decisions, but it cannot be deemed that the defendant had no ability to discern things or make decisions, and furthermore, it cannot be deemed that there

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime concerned;

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

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 10 (2) and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for mitigation of mental disorders;

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