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

around April 19:15, 2016, the Defendant stated that “the Defendant frighting a frighting frighting frighting frighting frighting frighting frighting frighting frighting frighting frighting frighting frighting frighting frighting frighting frighting frighting frighting frighting frighting frighting frighting frighting frighting frighting frighting frighting frighting frighting frighting frighting frighting frighting fright

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. The place where he works in the E District;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (Attachment of CCTV photographs concerning interference with the performance of public duties);

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

1. The sentencing criteria for the instant case are as follows, taking into account the following facts: (a) the main sentence of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the period of suspension of execution does not have a significant number of criminal records of violence, but it is recognized that there have occurred a large amount of alcohol and the current mistake has been recognized and no punishment exceeding the fine has been imposed: (b

[Determination of the type] Class 1 (Interference with the Execution of Official Duties and Compelling the Performance of Official Duties) [Scope of Punishment] Imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months from 6 months to 1 year (basic area)

1. Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act on the community service order;