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

On January 30, 2017, at around 20:25, the Defendant: (a) opened a patrol car on which the police officers, including E, from the Busan Jin-gu Police Station D District Party E, who was called out after receiving a report of 112, do not immediately resolve the problem of mobile phone damage; and (b) opened the patrol car on the right blus of the police officer, and opened the front seat of the patrol car between approximately 20 minutes, and failed to depart from the patrol car on the ground that the police officers, including E, from the Busan Jin-gu Police Station D District Party E, did not immediately resolve the problem of mobile phone damage.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning 112 reporting handling duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on investigation reporting;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act in the suspension of execution prevents the defendant from performing his/her official duties, and the punishment is determined as ordered in consideration of the following: (a) the liability of the defendant is not less than that of the defendant; (b) the defendant has no same criminal record; (c) the defendant has only three times a fine; (d) the defendant reflects the crime; and (e) the age, character