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

On April 22, 2014, at around 22:00, the Defendant sent a disturbance, such as a door door, etc. outside the office of “C” located in Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Defendant expressed that “I must see that E, who was called out after receiving 112 a report, solicits the Defendant to feel a disturbance and file a petition.” On the ground that E, who was called out of the 112 report, recommended the Defendant to do so, “I must see that she she fright, fright fright fright, etc.,” and took three times the back of E’s chest and mae E’s back by hand.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of police officers' duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of F’s written Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

2. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act [the scope of recommending sentence] 1 to 8 months (the decision of sentencing] under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution , the Defendant’s confession and reflects the fact that there is no record of having been sentenced to imprisonment, and the Defendant’s age, environment, circumstances of the instant crime, details, circumstances after the instant crime, etc., shall be determined as per the order, taking into account the sentencing conditions under Article 5