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

On January 9, 2020, the Defendant, at the front of B on the 02:10 occ. B, 112 reported that “the Defendant was “hicking and destroying to straw,” and that “the Defendant was assaulted by the police officer,” that “the police officer was dint to stop the Defendant,” and that the Defendant used the patrol vehicle front of the patrol vehicle to walk 5 times on the left side of D.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to patrol pictures;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, and Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc.;

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: One to five years of imprisonment;

2. The scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines [the scope of the punishment of imprisonment] the obstruction of performance of official duties [the category 1]/ the coercion of official duties [the scope of the recommended area and the punishment of recommendation] basic area, six months through one year and six months.

3. Determination of sentence: The sentence shall be determined in the same manner as the order, taking into consideration all the circumstances, such as six months of imprisonment, the course leading to the instant crime for two years of suspended sentence, the degree of interference with police patrols arising therefrom, the defendant has no criminal record of the same kind of criminal record or suspended sentence.