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 July 7, 2020, the Defendant, at around 23:37, 2020, she stopped in front of the 1855 truth, and she, at the B bus stoped in front of the 1855 truth, she: (a) stated that “no guest has been on a close point; (b)” the Defendant, upon receiving a report from the bus driver 112 and demanded the police officer D belonging to the police box called C, who was called out, that he she would get off from the lock, she would have to go off from the shoulder, or assault the above E at one time.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning the handling of 112 reports.

Summary of Evidence

1. Application of the statutes on CCTV images CDs in police statements made by the defendant to the defendant's legal statement E;

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 Act of the suspended sentence is that the Defendant, a police official, who was under the influence of alcohol, was assaulted against the victim, who was dispatched after being reported 112 by the police officer, in a manner that considers the click with no particular reason, thereby obstructing the legitimate execution of official duties, and the responsibility for such crime is not weak.

However, the extent of violence committed by the Defendant is relatively minor, and the Defendant is the primary offender and reflects on the crime, and other various sentencing conditions specified in the trial process of this case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, economic circumstances, etc., shall be comprehensively considered, and the punishment is determined as ordered in the same manner.