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 23, 2018, the Defendant: (a) received 112 reports related to a drinking person who was under the influence of alcohol in front of the convenience store C located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu; and (b) on the ground that the border E belonging to the D District of the Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, the Defendant shouldered himself.

“In doing a bath,” he was fluoring a drinking, and fluoring by hand the fluor of the above E’s work fluoring the breast part of the said E.

Accordingly, the Defendant, who is a police official, interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of reported case E-12.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. E statements;

1. 112 Notification to a department related to the report of the case;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

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

1. Circumstances unfavorable to the reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act: under the influence of alcohol by the defendant, the crime is inferior, such as assaulting a police officer dispatched upon receiving a report, and circumstances that have already been punished for obstructing the performance of official duties: The defendant's mistake is recognized, and the exercise of force against the victimized police officer seems to have relatively insignificant; the defendant's age, sex behavior, family relation, family environment, motive and means of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc. are considered to be determined as ordered by the disposition.