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

On April 20, 2018, around 14:38, the Defendant: (a) expressed the Defendant’s desire to “D community service center” in B, which is located in B, on April 14:38, 2018, on the ground that the public official E (at the age of 53) belonging to the said community service center, given the Defendant an explanation of the proviso for the assessment of work ability by telephone, and explained the Defendant to the above E, “I am, Chewing, I am, I am, I am, I am,” and assaulted the Defendant with the left hand with one wheels part of the snow of the said E.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the receipt of welfare funds for public officials and counseling affairs.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of E;

1. CCTV CDs (the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the damaged public official is not E, but according to the testimony of E and CCTV images at the time of the testimony of E, it can be recognized that E is a public official of damage);

Application of Statutes

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act - Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Suspension of Execution - Circumstances favorable to the defendant: The fact that the defendant is a primary offender - unfavorable circumstances: The fact that he/she has committed violence against him/her and criticizes the damaged public officials, etc.;