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

On October 20, 2019, the Defendant received 112 report at the parking lot for the Damb apartment in Pakistan-si, Pakistan-si, on October 20, 2019, on the ground that the police officer belonging to the police station in the Pakistan-si, who called the scene, finds the Defendant and finds any defect to listen to the circumstances of the case, the Defendant calculated once on the floor of hand the above D’s son’s just head part of the police officer E, who continued to restrain the Defendant, and assaulted the above D’s head part of the E, one time on the hand, and the head part of the police officer belonging to the same district where the Defendant was located, on the ground that the police officer discovered the Defendant and tried to listen to the circumstances of the case.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers in relation to 112 reported handling duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of F in the police interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Application of each police protocol of statement to E and D;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

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

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Scope of punishment by law: One month 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 Convicts]: Where the degree of violence, intimidation, and deceptive scheme is insignificant (the scope of the recommended area and the recommended sentence] mitigation area, one month to eight months of imprisonment.

3. The Defendant’s act of sentencing is highly likely to be subject to criticism in that it not only prevents police officers from maintaining their order, but also promotes light of legal order and public authority.

On the other hand, the defendant shows a attitude that the defendant is able to recognize a mistake in depth.

The degree of assault or obstruction of the performance of official duties by the defendant is not obvious.

The defendant shall be punished by the same crime or fine.