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

At around 20:20 on April 10, 2016, the Defendant: (a) received 112 reporting that the proprietor was in front of the cafeteria, “C” restaurant located in the Chungcheongnamcheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun; (b) and (c) was moving to a axis from E, a slopeF, and was under the influence of alcohol, and was under the influence of alcohol to E, “I want to am in the Republic of China or China. I want to am in the knife. B. I am dead at one time.”

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statement to E;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 136 of the Election of Imprisonment;

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

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

1. The scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines [decision of type] of the obstruction of performance of official duties: There is no person who has a category 1 (the obstruction of performance of official duties or coercion of official duties) (the area of recommendation and sentence] (the area of recommendation and sentence), the basic area of the punishment, and the imprisonment for not less than 6 months and not more

2. Since the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, such as this case’s sentence, is a crime that undermines the function of the State by nullifying the legitimate exercise of public authority, there is a need for strict punishment in order to establish national legal order and eradicate the light of public authority.

On the other hand, on the other hand, the defendant was committing the crime of this case and his mistake is divided.

The defendant seems to have committed the crime of this case due to the negligence that the defendant lost his ability to breathly, and the frequency of assault was limited to once, and the degree of assault was not limited to only once.

Until now, the defendant had no record of being punished for the same crime, and there was no record of being sentenced to the punishment heavier than the fine for the same crime.

All the sentencing conditions, etc. revealed in the trial process of this case are disadvantageous or favorable to the defendant.