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.

On October 24, 2017, the Defendant: (a) 01:30, at a singing room located in the northwest-gu B at the port of call, she saw that the Defendant was frighter in front of the right side of the patrol box (net 1) sent after receiving a 112 report; and (b) saw that the Defendant was frighter from E, the police officer of the police box, who was assigned to the police box, and she saw that the Defendant she was frighter in front of the right side of the patrol box (net 1) and assaulted the above police officer’s right side part and the part less than that of the police.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning the handling of reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. A written statement;

1. The work log and the list of reported cases;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to field photographs and photographs of police officers assaulted;

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 suspended execution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 62 (1));