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

On January 15, 2019, at around 23:40, the Defendant received 112 reports from the main points of “C” located in Seocheon-si B, Seocheon-si, and recommended the Defendant to return home to the Defendant by police officers affiliated with the D Zone D District of the 1,000 U.S. police station, which called “Isra after the examination of the party,” and thereby interfere with the police officer’s maintenance of order and legitimate performance of duties concerning the handling of 112 reports.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. A written statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the service log and the 112 Reporting Case Handling Table;

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

1. The reason for the sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Code of the Suspension of Execution [the scope of recommendation] The basic area (6 to 1.6 months) of the obstruction of performance of official duties (the decision of sentence] the act of obstructing the performance of official duties of police officers who wear the uniform by the defendant is not that of the crime.

However, the punishment shall be determined as ordered by taking into account the following factors: (a) the defendant reflects the wrongness of the defendant; (b) the motive and circumstances leading up to the crime of this case; (c) the content and degree of interference with official duties; (d) the circumstances after the crime of this case; and (e) the age, character, conduct, family relationship, economic circumstances, etc. of various kinds of sentencing as shown