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

1. On September 8, 2019, around 04:20, the Defendant: (a) reported in front of Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon; (b) and (c) reported in 112, the background leading up to the Daejeon Police Station C District Unit of the Daejeon Police Station called the “I or police past, governance, I or she grow back,” and assaulted at one time the D’s left left-hand son.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of police officers' duties concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

2. On September 8, 2019, the Defendant: (a) reported in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon; (b) on September 8, 2019, on the 112 report, that the Defendant sent back the scene D, i.e., “fing a disturbance, such as leaving displayed objects,” and (c) recommended the Defendant to return home; (d) he saw the tree shot (17cm in length) of dangerous objects, and threatened D by doing 4-5 acts in front of D immediately before D.

Accordingly, the defendant threatened D with dangerous articles, thereby obstructing police officers' legitimate performance of their duties on handling 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the detailed statement of handling the 112 Report Case, such as a photograph of the criminal tool, photograph of the cell phone, and screen image, etc.;

1. Relevant Articles 136(1) and 144(1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on probation and community service order is that the defendant committed the instant crime again even though he/she had been sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence in June of 2015 due to the same crime committed by the police officer, when he/she had been sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence for the same crime. However, the fact that the defendant recognized the mistake and reflects it, the defendant deposited one million won in the future of the damaged police officer.