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

On August 4, 2015, at around 04:05, the Defendant: (a) received a report from 119, that “the Defendant is going to die and die” in the vicinity of the Incheon Vindication-gun, Incheon, and (b) was on board the first-aid vehicle, along with the details of D, a police officer belonging to the Defendant’s wife, first-aid workers, and the Incheon Central Police Station C police Station, and went to a hospital; (c) when the Defendant’s wife’s wife’s wife’s wife’s wife’s wife’s wife’s wife’s breath, and (d) told the above D’s body, thereby falling off from the first-aid vehicle.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of each police protocol of statement to D and E;

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 (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act [Scope of Recommendation] There is no person who has the basic sphere (6-1-1-4 months) of the obstruction of performance of official duties (decision of sentence] (decision of sentence], the fact that there is no agreement with the police officer, there is no same record, but there is a criminal record of the victim police officer once the suspension of execution and the fine 12 times, the fact that there is no record of the same record, the fact that the crime is recognized, the defendant's age, character and character, environment, motive and circumstance leading to the crime of this case, circumstances after the crime of this case, etc. shall be determined as per the order.