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

On August 3, 2015, at around 00:40, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the “Cjun Points in Young-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si B”, and upon receiving 112 reports, the Defendant sent the police box to the scene, E, etc. of the police box belonging to the Suwon-nam Police Station.

The Defendant, including the above E, 3 police officers, attempted to take the breath of themselves on the patrol vehicle by shouldering himself and her, took a bath to E, and sprinked him, and assaulted E, such as the defect of E, the defect of E to be loaded on the patrol vehicle, the back of the patrol vehicle, and opening and unloading the patrol vehicle.

Accordingly, 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 to E by the police;

1. A written statement of F and G;

1. On-site photographs, photographs of damaged parts, etc.;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing the 112 Reporting Case Handling List;

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;

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

1. The scope of the balance of recommendations according to the sentencing guidelines [the scope of recommendations] shall be the basic area (six months to one year and four months) of the obstruction of performance of official duties (the obstruction of performance of official duties) (the scope of recommendations];

2. Determination of sentence: The defendant, who was sentenced to a fine of one million won for the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties in 2010, and was sentenced to a fine of one million won for the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties in 2010, and committed the crime of this case without being aware of the past two years of the suspension of execution in 2012, and committed the crime of this case without being aware of the past two years of the suspension of execution in 2012, and the defendant did not receive a letter from the damaged police officer; on the other hand, the defendant reflects the crime; the degree and degree of the violence the defendant committed; the degree of violence the defendant committed; the degree of interference with the execution of official duties; and other matters specified in Article 51 of the Criminal