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

On August 14, 2015, at around 21:30, the Defendant was urged to return home from E and slope F of the D Zone who was dispatched after receiving 112 report from the winners who were frighted on the roadside while drinking on the road in front of the “C” located in Busan B.

The Defendant committed assaulting the Defendant on one hand at his face, on one hand, as F slope caused the Defendant’s negligence, “this franch franch franch franch,” “I franch franch franch, franch franch franch,” and “I franch franch franch, franch franch franch,” and the E circumstances franch “h franch,” and franched on one hand.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning the handling of reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of the accused;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to statement statement and investigation report (at the same time, etc.) to E;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

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

1. Selection of imprisonment;

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on orders to provide community service and attend lectures [Scope of Recommendation] The execution of imprisonment shall be postponed in consideration of the following: (a) there is no basic area (6 to 1 year and 4 months) of the obstruction of performance of official duties; (b) there is no person who is a special person [Pronouncement] [decision of sentence] contingent crime; (c) the degree of interference with official duties is not serious; and (d) the degree of interference is not excessive;