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

On September 22 and 10, 2016, the Defendant: (a) received a report from D’D 112, “F (47 tax) from a police officer F (F) belonging to the Seoul Central Guard Station E District, which called “Mindong-gu” and called, “F (F)” on September 11, 2016, the Defendant committed an assault by the police officer, such as f.o., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., and f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., of a police officer’s f., who was called as a police officer.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning 112 report processing.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act [Scope of Recommendation] There is no basic area (from June to one year and four months) (the person who is subject to special sentencing] [decision of sentence] method of crime and degree of damage, the fact that the defendant reflects the wrongness, the criminal records of the defendant, living relations, etc., and the sentence is determined as per the disposition.