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

In the bus No. 146, the Defendant 112 reported 112 and moved to the above C zone by a slope D belonging to the Seoul Mine Police Station, which called “any person who has frighted in a bus,” and said D, the Defendant 150-way, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gwangjin-gu, was moving to the said C zone on February 6, 2015. On the back of the patrol zone, around 08:15, the Defendant 150-way at the same time as the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Gwangjin-gu, stated, “I wish to do so,” and “I wish to do so, I want to do so,” said D’s left part part of the said D as his hand, and assault the said D’s left part.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of 112 reported cases and the protection of the host.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of D;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Scope of recommendations according to the sentencing guidelines: Imprisonment of six months to one year and four months [type of crime]; obstruction of the performance of official duties - obstruction of the performance of official duties -/ coercion of official duties (type 1] basic area - Persons under special circumstances and persons under special mitigation: None of them;

2. The Defendant again commits the instant crime even though he/she was punished by a fine of three million won due to the obstruction of performance of official duties on August 2014, taking into account the details and contents of the instant crime, and the fact that he/she again commits the instant crime, and other criminal records, etc.

However, the sentencing guidelines are recommended in consideration of the fact that the defendant led to the confession of the crime and reflects his mistake in depth, that the defendant seems to have committed this case by drinking, that the defendant supports his own income after the divorce in the year, that he supports his parents by year, and that he supports his parents by year. The recent sentencing factors such as the criminal records, age, character and conduct, environment, etc. are considered within the recommended range of the sentencing guidelines.