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 January 18, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 03:20 on January 18, 2017, in front of the agricultural branch of the Navy in the territory of the Republic of Korea, 1:12, and (b) around the Southern Police Station B police box belonging to the Southern Police Station B police box of the Republic of Korea who was called out after receiving a report by 112, should not be subject to the competent authority for weather.

Then, the taxi has come home because of the problem of the taxi.

"In the facts charged, C, which is the damaged police officer, is concerned about whether locked here."

However, according to the legitimate examination of evidence by this Court, the fact that D, a other police officer, could recognize the fact that it was a horse, was deleted.

When you request returning home while speaking, we see that "the governance x X X ....." was put in place a part of the right bridge of the above C as a drinking.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning 112 reporting processing duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made with respect to C and D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on investigation reports (14th of investigation records);

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

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

1. Where the degree of violence, intimidation, deceptive scheme, or interference with public duties is insignificant in the mitigation area (one month to eight months) of Class 1 (Interference with the performance of public duties and coercion of duties) (the degree of interference with the performance of public duties) of the sentencing criteria;

2. The crime of interference with the performance of official duties by police officers, such as this case, is not good in that it seriously undermines police officers' pride and desire to work and eventually causes damage to the general public.

Although the defendant should be punished strictly, the punishment as ordered shall be determined in consideration of the fact that the defendant is against the defendant, the degree of tangible force exercised to the victimized police officer is relatively minor, and there is no record of punishment for the same kind of crime.