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

On November 6, 2018, from around 22:05 to 22:15, the Defendant: (a) received a 112 report from the original week B from around 22:05 to from around 22:12, that the customer was aware of his/her accounting under the influence of alcohol; (b) the background leading up to the Kuju Police Station C District Unit of the original state police station, and (c) the background leading up to E, who was able to use home, and (d) how he/she was able to use home, and (d) entered the main place; and (d) when he/she prevented the Defendant, the Defendant expressed his/her desire to “I Y, Chewing, how I w w w w w h h h h h h h, and h h h h h h h h

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on the handling of 112 reports and maintenance of order.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to arrest and report cases;

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

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment for one month to five years;

2. Scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines [decision of type] of the obstruction of performance of official duties or coercion of duties (special sponsers): Where the degree of violence, intimidation and deception is minor (the scope of the recommended area and the recommended punishment): Reduction area, one month to eight months of imprisonment.

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for four months and one year of suspended sentence; and