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

On November 12, 2017, around 10:30, the Defendant: (a) heard the Defendant’s speech to return home from D(31) to the police officer affiliated with D(31) of the Seocheon-gu Seoul Special Police Station C District of the Seocheon-gu Police Station, Seocheon-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, upon receipt of a report from 112 that a drunk person is in a restaurant; and (b) D “I wish to die. I wish to die.”

Before doing so, she was fluoring a drinking and fluoring the left of D due to his/her abstinence.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on the handling of 112 reported duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Each statement of E, F and G;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

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. Although the sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act is inferior to the quality of the crime by assaulting a police officer who intends to return home of the person in question, considering all the circumstances, such as the defendant's sexual intercourse, the fact that the defendant has no record of the suspended execution or more criminal records, and the character and conduct, environment, degree of assault, and circumstances leading to the crime.