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

At around 04:59 on November 18, 2018, the Defendant: (a) received 112 report due to the dispute with the head of the Geum-gu, Busan, Mung-gu B lending C; and (b) sought to sell the said E, and (c) sought to remove the damage, etc. of D living South and North from the police station belonging to the Busan, Fung-gu, the Busan, which was called upon by the Defendant at the time when the Defendant was placed in the Gung-gu, the Busan, the police station at the time when he was called. The Defendant attempted to sell the E, and “Y-gu, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, and I am in the prison,” and called “Y-gu, I am, I am, I am

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to 112 reported case handling lists and investigation reports (on-site situations, etc.);

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (i.e., the grounds for the suspended sentence)

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

1. Application of the sentencing criteria [Scope of Recommendation] The basic area (six months to one year and six months) of the obstruction of performance of official duties (the obstruction of performance of official duties and coercion of official duties) (the special person who has not been punished);

2. The decision-making defendant, who received a report of the occurrence of violence, has a record of obstructing the police officer from performing his duties, criminal punishment in relation to violence. However, the defendant confessions all of the crimes and repents his mistake in depth, there is no record of punishment for obstruction of performance of official duties, and the sentencing as ordered in consideration of the defendant's age, family condition, etc.