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.

At around 10:00 on October 18, 2018, the Defendant: (a) called the “OOOOO restaurant in Yangsan-si; (b) received a 112 report that the subject of the drinking, who was suspected to have a disturbance, interfered with funeral, and drive drinking; and (c) demanded the Defendant to conduct a drinking test; and (d) made the Defendant’s daily performance of drinking; (b) made the d’s two arms by cutting off the d’s two arms; and (c) sealed the d’s flabation.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Each statement of E and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (Attachment to a detailed statement of processing a report 112);

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Code of the Suspension of Execution [Type Decision] The reason for the sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Code [Decision on the Suspension of Execution] is the basic area [Determination on the sphere of recommendation] / [the scope of recommendation] six months to one year and six months / [whether suspended execution is suspended or not] - there is no criminal conviction or more for general consideration (decision on the Suspension of Execution] along with the above elements of sentencing (decision on the Suspension of Execution]. The reasons for and degree of interference with the performance of official duties, the power of fine three times due to other types of crime, the situation of