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 April 6, 2017, at around 18:22, the Defendant: (a) reported 112 while drunkly flacing “D” in front of the “D,” which was in the territory of Yong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gun; and (b) provided a sloping F and G with a police box affiliated with the shotf of the Yeongdeungpo-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul; and (c) called the Defendant, upon receiving a report from the Defendant, on April 6, 2017, the Defendant sent to the said police officer “Wook k

Coding up to the house chackers

The racker’s racker’s rack, and the F talks to the Defendant so that the Defendant can invalid, and the racker’s rack rack rack rack rack rack rack rack rack racks and was on board the rack racks.

The F used the left arm's length and used it to catch out and assault out.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of official duties by police officers on the handling of 112 reported cases and the prevention of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the Suspension of Execution of Sentence 136(1) of the Criminal Act on the criminal facts applicable to the defendant's legal statement F, G, and H (the act within the police box A) of each police statement protocol of the defendant F, G, and H (the act within the police box A) and Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the choice of imprisonment) [type] the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act / [the special sentencing person] mitigated under Article 1 of the Criminal Act / [the special sentencing person] mitigated under the case where the degree of violence, intimidation, deceptive scheme, or interference with public duties is minor [the recommended and sentenced] mitigated area [the sentence] [the sentence] mitigated area (one month to eight months] [the sentence] of the defendant's lawful execution of public duties, and the responsibility for the crime of this case is not somewhat mitigated.

It is also disadvantageous to the defendant, who has a record of being fined once due to the same crime.

However, considering that the defendant's mistake is recognized and against the defendant, the degree of interference with the execution of official duties is relatively heavy, and the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive, background, means and consequence of the crime, and other circumstances after the crime are considered.