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

Around 22:30 on May 14, 2017, the Defendant, while drunk in front of the “D”, reported to 112 as “D,” and he was under the influence of alcohol in front of the “D,” and was under the influence of 112, and the victim F (55 years old) who is the circumstances leading to the E District of the king Police Station E District (5 years old) dispatched to the site upon the receipt of the report was released from the patrol car, and the Defendant was under the influence of the Defendant, one time on the left side, and one time on the right side side, one time on the part of the head, which requires treatment for about two weeks.

As a result, the defendant interfered with police officers' performance of duties concerning the handling of 112 reported cases, and at the same time injured the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. 112 Notification to the reporting-related department;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to damaged photographs and diagnostic instruments;

1. Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties) and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act;

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

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act - Reasons for sentencing favorable to him/her: The defendant's mistake is recognized; the defendant has no record of punishment other than punishment imposed once suspended sentence for another type of crime; disadvantageous circumstances: The defendant's injury was inflicted on the police dispatched according to the report 112, and the nature of the crime is poor; and the defendant's injury was not agreed with the victimized police officer;