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

1. Around November 23, 2018, at the convenience store C located in Hanam-si B, the Defendant: (a) received 112 report from the Defendant’s request on the part of the convenience store D, stating that “the Defendant lost Handphones; and (b) confirmed the Defendant’s 112 report; and (c) the victim E, the circumstances leading up to the lower police station called to the site, sent to the site, confirmed the 112 report by the Defendant; and (d) did not want to frien and frien the Defendant; (b) the victim E, who was the circumstances leading up to the lower police station called to the site, would not want to frien the Defendant, such as why she would be unable to frien the frith, and that she would be friened.”

2. When the Defendant informed the Defendant that he would be arrested as a flagrant offender for the same reason as the preceding paragraph at the time and at the same place as the performance of official duties, and that the lower-nam Police Station affiliated with the lower-nam Police Station would arrest the Defendant as a flagrant offender for the said reason, the Defendant was pushed down the F’s chest by hand once.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the police officer's 112 report processing and legitimate execution of duties related to the arrest of flagrant offender.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of E and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of D;

1. Relevant Article 311 of the Criminal Act, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act ( considered as the following favorable circumstances):

1. The fact that there are criminal records of the same kind of suspended sentence for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act, and that it is difficult to eliminate the possibility of recidivism due to multiple violent crimes committed by the principal offender is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, considering the fact that each of the crimes of this case shows the attitude of confessioning and opposing each of the crimes of this case, the degree of obstruction of performance of official duties is not much serious, the circumstances of Article 51 of the Criminal Act, the scope of recommendations in the sentencing guidelines for some crimes, etc., the punishment as set forth in the