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

On June 17, 2017, at around 22:30, the Defendant received a 112 report to the effect that “the Defendant would not pay the drinking value” at a entertainment station located in B, and requested the Defendant to voluntarily accompany the Defendant to a police box by a slope D and E belonging to the Tong-gu Police Station C police box called to the site, and approved the request, and the Defendant was transferred to the said police station and C police box along with the patrol.

At around 22:48 on the same day, the Defendant committed assault against D, such as spiting, spiting, etc. D, that is, the Defendant’s words “I calculated the drinking value even now, I have returned home” from the above D, “I have considered D’s face by drinking,” and spiting D’s face.

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. Each police statement made to D or F;

1. Investigation report (verification of suspect's act by police booms);

1. 112 Reporting case handling table;

1. Within the boundary of a G main place business permit and main place, and the application of the statutes on photographs of victimized police officers;

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

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

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

1. The scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for one month to five years; and

2. The scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines [the scope of the recommended punishment] and the basic area (six months to one year and six months) (no person subject to special sentencing] shall interfere with the performance of public duties.

3. The fact that the Defendant, who was sentenced to the sentence, recognized the instant crime and was against the Defendant was committed is favorable to the Defendant. Meanwhile, the fact that the Defendant was punished by a fine due to a crime obstructing the performance of official duties at the same time in 2014 is considered disadvantageous to the Defendant. Moreover, Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, is prescribed.