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

At around 01:30 on September 24, 2015, the Defendant: (a) asked a slope E to present an identification card by the relevant slope E with the 112 reported and called “Cju” in front of the Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si; (b) provided, “The other party would be able to present an identification card only why he/she does not have escape; (c) carried the body of the slope E on three occasions in his/her body; and (d) carried the F of the Mapo-si Police Station where he/she belongs to the Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, etc.,

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. Each police statement to F and E;

1. Application of statutes on photographs of damage;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime concerned;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Consideration of sentencing)

1. It is difficult to apply the sentencing criteria as it is a superior concurrent crime for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act.

Considering the fact that the defendant's mistake is recognized and reflected, the degree of obstruction of performance of official duties is not serious, the defendant seems to be a contingent crime, the defendant has no criminal records of the same kind, the defendant's age, character and conduct, etc., the sentence against the defendant shall be determined as the order and the execution of the sentence shall be suspended.