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 December 6, 2015, the Defendant reported 2225, in front of the Daegu Jung-gu branch church, the 1112-gu Police Station Cridge, the Daegu Jung-gu Police Station, which was called out after receiving a 112 report in relation to the cost of the taxi rate, interfered with the police officer’s legitimate execution of duties concerning the dispatch of a report by threatening-gu Police Station Cown-gu, Seoul, upon paying a taxi fee and returning home, and the said slopeD’s “fab, e.g., f., f., f., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to public officials' copies of a certificate and a copy of work site;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment.

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mental and physical weakness by defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the suspended sentence of the Criminal Act, it is recognized that the Defendant had drinking to a certain extent at the time of the instant crime, but in light of various circumstances such as the background of the instant crime, the details of the crime, and the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime, the Defendant committed the instant crime under the lack of ability to discern things or make decisions.

Therefore, we cannot accept the argument of mental and physical weakness.

The reason for sentencing [Scope of Recommendation] The basic area of sentencing No. 1 (Interference with the performance of official duties and coercion of duties) [No person subject to special sentencing] [Determination of sentence] The crime of this case is committed against a police officer who performs official duties, and the nature of the crime is not less than that of punishment. However, the crime of this case is not less than that of punishment twice by a fine in 2003, and it is against the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, and circumstances after the crime, etc., and all of the sentencing conditions shown in the arguments and records of this case are considered comprehensively.