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

On December 6, 2016, the Defendant, “C” in the front of the “C” in Pyeongtaek-si B, while drunkly b, was influenced, at around 23:37 on December 6, 2016, the Defendant, at the site of whether there was a serious violation of the goods from the border line E belonging to the Pyeongtaek-si Police Station D police station, who was dispatched to the said site after receiving a report of 112, and confirmed the Defendant, at the same time, she went to the vehicle without the flap of the said E, while moving to the said E, and she was able to flap the flap of the said E, who prevented this.

Accordingly, the defendant assaulted a police officer who was performing legitimate duties concerning the handling of 112 reports, thereby hindering the performance of official duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of F’s written Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (within the scope of the recommended sentencing criteria) of the suspended sentence;

1. Application of the sentencing criteria - Scope of the recommended sentence: Class 1 (Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties and Compelling of Duties) that interferes with the performance of official duties;

2. It is so ordered as per Disposition, taking into account the following factors: (a) the defendant has no record of punishment exceeding the same kind of power and fine; (b) the degree of assault is minor; (c) the background of the crime in this case; and (d) the defendant’s attitude of reflectivity; and (c) the