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

At around 03:00 on November 28, 2018, the Defendant was conducting trial expenses as to whether or not a substitute driver and an agent were paid on the front side of the Nam-gu B apartment zone in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Busan-gu, Seoul-do, Police Station C district unit of the Ulsan-gu, Police Station, which received the Defendant’s report and sent the substitute driver to the Defendant, and then sent the substitute driver’s license to the said police officer, and then sent the substitute driver’s license to the said police officer, who called “B safely return to B safely,” and the said police officer’s refusal of the request, and then, the Defendant committed assault, such as: (a) murder of the police officer’s dub; (b) blocking the front of the patrol vehicle; (c) refused the request, and (d) cutting down the two parts of the police officer’s arms by hand.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers in relation to the prevention, suppression and investigation of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Each statement of E and F;

1. Each investigation report (the sequence 9, 15 of the evidence list);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the details of 112 reported cases;

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime. Article 136 (Selection of Imprisonment or Imprisonment);

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (hereinafter “the grounds for the remaining sentence”), which is favorable to the defendant;

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act include: (a) the nature and form of the crime and the circumstances at the time of the crime; (b) the nature of the crime and the circumstances of the crime; (c) the degree of interference with official duties is not weak; and (d) there is a need to strictly punish the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, such as this case, in order to establish the legal order of the State and eradicate the light of the public authority; and (c) the liability for the crime of this case is not easy; and (d) even if there was the history of punishment for the same violent crime, the possibility of criticism is not small; (d) the Defendant appears to have committed the crime of this case, which is disadvantageous to the Defendant; and (e) the Defendant appears to have recognized