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

On October 31, 2014, at around 23:35, the Defendant committed an assault against the police officer to verify the identity of the police officer, such as: (a) G, a police officer affiliated with the F Zone of the Incheon Gyeyang-gu Police Station F Zone, who was dispatched after receiving the report of 112; (b) G, who is a police officer of the Incheon Gyeyang-gu Police Station, who was suspected of having a contact with the police officer; (c) having a police officer escape out of the country; and (d) having a police officer’s chest, who sealed the police officer’s chest in his/her hand.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the police statement law to H

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

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The scope of the sentencing guidelines for recommendation [the scope of the sentencing guidelines] the basic area (six months to one year and four months) of the obstruction of the performance of official duties (the obstruction of the performance of official duties) (the scope of the sentence for recommendation];

2. Determination of sentence shall be made as ordered in consideration of the fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime, the fact that the police officer deposited for H, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime, circumstances after the instant crime, etc.