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

At around 04:41 on April 15, 2019, the Defendant: (a) returned home to the Defendant after receiving 112 report from the police officer E and policeman affiliated with the Seongbuk Police Station D police box, that he was in his house, and the Defendant returned home to the Defendant; and (b) took the bath to the Defendant, “I am back to the Defendant,” “I am frien, frien, frien, frien, frien, frien, frien, frien, frien, frien, frien, frien, friened by drinking, and f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on 112 reported handling.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of E and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (victims and on-site exit situations);

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime concerned;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. In order to establish the legal order of the country with reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act and eradicate the light of the public authority, there is a need to strictly punish the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, and the Defendant has been punished twice by a fine for violent crimes.

However, considering the fact that the defendant confessions the crime of this case and repents his mistake, there is no record of punishment exceeding the fine, and the age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, means and result of the crime of this case, the punishment as ordered shall be determined in consideration of all the sentencing conditions shown in the arguments of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime.