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 10, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 23:40 on December 10, 2016, on the street in front of B’s real estate C located in Namyang-si, requested the head of the police box affiliated with the police box called up after receiving a report of 112 to allow the head of the police box called up to go to the nearby patrol room; and (b) moved along the patrol lane.

On the other hand, the Defendant continued to commit assault in the manner that the above E, flaging the Defendant in front of the Gelel in F, took the Defendant from the patrol car, and without any justifiable reason, she took a bath to “Chewing flag” without any justifiable reason, and puts the right side of the above E at one time, and then flags the right side of the above E beyond its own right side.

As a result, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the dispatch duty of a police officer 112 report.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of police statement protocol to E;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment.

1. The sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is based on the following factors: (a) the reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act; (b) the content and circumstances of the instant case; and (c) the degree of damage; and (c) the Defendant was