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

Around 05:30 on December 20, 2018, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol from the corridor of the building located in the Daegu Seo-gu B, Daegu-gu, and was under the influence of drinking on the floor. On December 20, 2018, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and was under the influence of alcohol on the floor, and was under the suspicion of personal information from D and E by the police officer of the Taegu Police Station, who was called upon 112, and was under the influence of questioning about personal information from D and E by the police officer of the Taegu Police Station, who was called upon 112, was under the influence of questioning about his/her personal information, and was under the influence of the police officer E at once.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers in regard to the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to D and E;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes related to work logs for police officers, duty logs for reporting cases, and Make photographs worn by policemen;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime concerned;

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

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. In order to establish a legal order on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act and eradicate the light of public authority, there is a need to strictly punish a crime that interferes with the performance of official duties. The instant obstruction of performance of official duties against two police officers, and the degree of crimes against two police officers, which are not negligible, are unfavorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognized his mistake and did not repeat again, and that he was the first offender is favorable to the defendant.

In full view of the degree of damage, details of the crime, circumstances after the crime, the prosecutor's imprisonment (ten months of imprisonment) and all other circumstances, it shall be decided as per the order.