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.

At around 12:53 on June 10, 2018, the Defendant: (a) stated that “I would like to separate the Defendant and C from the Defendant and hear the statements of the relevant persons,” while I would like to see that “I would go to C, I would like to go to see the E’s face on one occasion due to the Defendant’s drinking, and that I would like to go to E, even if I would like to go to the said police officer’s humbbbbbbbs at one time due to the Defendant’s humping.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on the prevention and suppression of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. 112 Reporting case handling table;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes for reporting internal accidents;

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 stay of execution (The following conditions of sentencing shall be considered as favorable among the reasons for sentencing);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order;

1. Scope of punishment by law: Not more than five years of imprisonment;

2. Application of the sentencing criteria [Type Determination] Obstructing the performance of public duties in the course of interfering with the performance of public duties, the Class 1 (Interference with and Force of Performance of Public Duties) [Special Sentencing Person] Reduction element: Reduction element of punishment: Non- [Determination in the sphere of recommendation] Reduction Area of Punishment [Scope of Recommendation] Reduction Area], one month to eight months.

3. The crime of this case, which was determined to be sentenced, is committed by the defendant with violence against a police officer performing lawful duties, and is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the circumstances are favorable to the defendant that the defendant reflects, that there is no same criminal history as the defendant, that the defendant seems to have committed the crime of this case by contingency, and that the defendant does not want the punishment against the defendant by mutual consent with the victimized police officer.