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

On May 20, 2018, the Defendant: (a) reported on May 20, 2018, on the front side of the Seogber apartment apartment in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-do, 51-6, “A person under the influence of alcohol is on the road”; (b) reported on the 112 report, and received a request for returning home from D and the police box belonging to the Ulsan-gu Police Station C, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-do, which called the Defendant, at the same time; and (c) sealed the flab of the above D’s flab, without any particular reason.

Defendant continued to use the aforementioned mobile phone to photograph the Defendant’s act of assaulting the Defendant’s above D by making use of his mobile phone, and she reported about two times the chest part of the above E as her head, and obstructed the chest part of the above E by hand.

As a result, the Defendant, who is a police official, has fulfilled his legitimate duties in relation to the handling of reported cases by the above D and E.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to D or E;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (see, e.g., “reasons for sentencing” as follows)

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of the Order to Provide community service and attend lecture is committed by the defendant, who acts on the road under the influence of alcohol, and is demanded by the police officer to return home from the police officer called to the site after receiving 112 report, and assault the police officer by hand, and assault other police officers taking this cell phone, thereby obstructing the police officer's legitimate execution of duties. The crime of this case is not proper in light of the law and form of the crime, the circumstances at the time of the crime, etc., the crime is not proper; the crime is two police officers due to the crime of this case, and the degree of violence and interference with official duties is not minor.