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

On February 23, 2018, at around 00:25, the Defendant: (a) sent to the site after receiving a report on the assault case between the Defendant’s daily behaviors and another person on the front of the Daegu-gu Office B, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu; (b) the slope D belonging to the police station C District of the police station was carrying only the patrols of the parties to the assault case; and (c) the Defendant said, “Cricks are not related to the case,” and the Defendant prevented the operation of the said patrol vehicle.

Accordingly, the defendant, who was lowered from the patrol car, said that the defendant "Iskin liquor tax invoice", the defendant, "Iskn't do so" to the assistant inspector D;

Before doing so, it was assaulted twice on the breast part of the sloping D's chest with two descendants while taking a bath for the death.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of official duties by police officers on the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. E statements;

1. Application of statutes governing the place of work;

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

1. According to Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution, the Defendant’s reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, taking into account all the circumstances, including the fact that the Defendant recognized his/her mistake and did not repeat again, contingent crimes, the degree of damage, circumstances of the crime, degree of the crime, and the record of the crime (limited to a majority of the criminal records of the crime