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

On December 21, 2017, the Defendant, at around 01:3, on the road of the “Cju” located in Seosan City B, and on the road of the “Cju”, the Defendant: (a) received a report from 112, stating that the customer “spacing a disturbance without drinking value”; and (b) performed the act of the police officer, i.e., the police officer, who prevented the Defendant from returning home to the Defendant, and (c) took two times as his head.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the prevention, suppression and investigation of police officers' crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. A statement prepared by the F;

1. A list of 112 reported cases, or a D district unit's work;

1. Investigation report (verification of the details of hospital treatment, such as the number of days of treatment against victimized police officers);

1. A medical certificate;

1. Application of statutes on field photographs;

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 suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act [the scope of recommendation] There is no person [the person subject to special sentencing] in the basic area (from June to one year and six months) (the person subject to special sentencing] [the decision of sentencing] [the defendant's crime of this case requires strict punishment of crimes against public authority as it interferes with police officers' legitimate execution of their duties, and the defendant has a number of punishments including several crimes.

However, the following facts are considered as favorable to the defendant: (a) the fact that the defendant's mistake is recognized and against the defendant; (b) there has been no history of punishment for the last seven years; and (c) the fact that this case appears to have been contingently punished; and (d) other factors of sentencing specified in the records and theories of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime; and (e) other factors of sentencing specified in the records and arguments of this case, such as