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

At around 02:54 on April 6, 2019, the Defendant listened to the Defendant’s statement that he would pay the drinking value from E to the police officers belonging to the D District, called “Cnoman’s store,” which was called “Cnoman’s son, not the police,” sent to the Defendant, and repeated the Defendant’s behavior to go to the Defendant, while intending to go to go to the Defendant, intending to go to go to the Defendant, while intending to turn on the hand, intending to turn on the hand, and continuing to go to go to the Defendant, even though she was asked to go to the Defendant, even though she was urged to go to the Defendant.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of E and G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to 119 emergency medical services performed;

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. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on Probation;

1. The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment for one to five years;

2. Scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines [decision of type] of the obstruction of performance of official duties or coercion of duties (special sponsers): In cases where the degree of violence, intimidation, and deceptive scheme is insignificant (the scope of the recommended area and the recommended sentence] mitigation area, and one month to eight months of imprisonment.

3. In addition to the defendant's previous convictions for the same offense, even though he was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on July 15, 2014 due to obstruction of performance of official duties, the elements of sentencing that would be disadvantageous to the crime of this case, but the police officer did not have serious damage due to the crime of this case, the crime of this case was committed after the expiration of the suspended sentence period and about two years and eight months, the defendant recognized his mistake, and the victim police officer did not want the punishment of the defendant, and the age, character, character, environment, and motive for the crime of this case.