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 June 2, 2020, the Defendant received a report from the above restaurant proprietor 112 and requested the Defendant to return home to the Defendant on June 2, 2020, to the Assistant E belonging to the Ulsan Southern Police Station Down, the Defendant called the Defendant, on June 2, 202, to the effect that the Defendant, in a “C” restaurant located in Ulsan-gu B, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul and used for drinking together with the Defendant, and that the Defendant does not complete his business.

“Catherbly, E’s chest bed and fated, fatd, fatd, fatd, fatd, fatd, fatd, fatd, fatd, fatd, fatd, fatd, fatd, and fatd, E’s fatd, “hatd, fatd, fatd,” and is the police;

내가 뭘 잘못했냐,

I would like to do so, Doz. Doz.

By doing so, it interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officials with regard to the handling of reports by 112.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of F’s written Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on the observation of protection and order to attend lectures;

1. Scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with labor for one month to five years;

2. Scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines [the types of decisions] interference with the performance of official duties on the grounds that a crime interfering with the performance of official duties is [the Class 1] interference with the performance of official duties or coercion [the special sentencing factors] mitigation factors: Where the degree of violence, intimidation, and deceptive scheme is minor [the territory of recommendation and the scope of the recommended punishment] mitigation area, one month to eight months of imprisonment;

3. The defendant who was sentenced to the punishment in this case led to the confession of the crime in this case, has a misunderstanding as his own name, has a defect of hearing and will cut his drinking.

The punishment as ordered shall be determined in consideration of various sentencing factors, such as the defendant's age, environment, motive for the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.