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

On February 4, 2020, the Defendant: (a) around 23:25, at the front of Gangnam-gu Seoul, reported at around 112, the Defendant: (b) confirmed the on-site situation; (c) sought a statement from the Defendant on personal information and the situation at the time; (d) discovered and prevented the Defendant from leaving the road; (d) attempted to go beyond the above police officer’s bridge; (e) moved her hand; (e) was pushed down the chest and her face at one time.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties of police officers regarding the handling of 112 reported cases, protection of people's lives, bodies, and property, prevention, suppression, investigation, etc. of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. Photographs of a damaged police officer;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to police officers called out;

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act ( considered as follows):

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

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: One to five years of imprisonment;

2. The scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines [decision of types] of the obstruction of performance of official duties: [Type 1] There is no obstruction of performance of official duties or coercion of official duties (special person] (the scope of the recommended area and the recommended punishment] basic area, six months to one year and six months of imprisonment.

3. In a case where the decision-making defendant assaulted the police officer who performs his duties without any reason, the nature of the crime is not good, and the degree of assault is not somewhat weak.

However, the defendant reflects his mistake, the fact that there is no criminal records other than the past punished once by the fine of this kind, and the fact that it cannot be seen as a planned crime, and the defendant's age, character, character, environment, family relationship, health status, motive and circumstance of the crime, method and method of the crime, and after the crime.