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

On July 25, 2015, at around 23:30 on July 25, 2015, the Defendant assaulted the following parts of the instant E on one occasion on the left hand, by stating that “A police officer belonging to the D Zone who was dispatched to the site after receiving a report on 112 regarding violence in C, was a fluorous player, who was within the inside, is a profist, who may die, and who will die as a police officer.”

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statement to E;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act ( considered favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing following the suspended sentence);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order;

1. Scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines - The basic area (from June to April) of the obstruction of performance of official duties - the decision of the sentence that there is no special person: No more unfavorable one: The crime of this case is committed against the police officer performing official duties, and the nature of the crime is not easy; the crime of this case is committed against the police officer performing official duties; there is no record of punishment for the same kind of crime; the defendant is against the defendant; the defendant is against the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, circumstances after the crime, etc.; and all of the sentencing conditions specified in the arguments and records of this case shall be determined as the order.