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

On September 23, 2016, around 23:48, the Defendant was arguingd with the above person under his name in his name on the ground that he cut the crosswalk and the motor vehicle in his name in front of the Defendant was passing ahead of the Defendant. On September 23, 2016, when he was removed by the border E belonging to the D District Party in the 112-report and dispatched by the 112-report, the Defendant expressed her will to “Chewing trees.”

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported duties by assault.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning police statements to E;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for the sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on Probation and Social Service Order [Scope of Recommendation] There is no basic area of obstruction of performance of official duties (6-1-4 months) [Decision of sentence] [Decision of suspension of execution of imprisonment for the same kind of crime] [Decision of suspension of execution of imprisonment for the same crime] The fact that there is a record of being sentenced to the suspension of execution of imprisonment for the same crime, the time of committing the crime, the fact that the health situation is not good, and the fact that social relation is obvious, the punishment as the order shall be determined in consideration of various sentencing conditions shown in the trial