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

On May 5, 2016, at around 22:37, the Defendant: (a) reported on May 22, 2016 that the Defendant 112 was frighting to the Defendant’s father, such as taking the Defendant’s bath on the front of the 101-way Busan East-gu C Borrowing Operation 101, and called out after receiving a report, the police officer E, etc., working at the Busan East-dong Police Station D Police Station D, who was called out, attempted to commit an continued assault on the Defendant’s father; (b) expressed the Defendant’s two arms to E; and (c) released the E arms once.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the dispatch of 112 reported police officers and the prevention of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

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

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. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution [the scope of recommendation and sentence] of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act has no basic ( June - one year and four months) [the person subject to special sentencing] [the decision of sentence] of the crime of this case is that the defendant assaults a police officer as above to interfere with the performance of his official duties, and the nature of the crime is not weak.

However, the sentencing conditions of the defendant, such as the defendant's age, occupation, sex, family relation, motive and circumstance before and after the crime, shall be comprehensively considered, and the sentence like the order shall be determined.