2. Provided, That the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive;

3...

On February 8, 2018, the Defendant, at around 21:30, at “C” located on the first floor of the building B in Gui-si, Gui-si, B, and at around 112, the Defendant, upon receiving a report from the employees of the said convenience store, made two times the Defendant’s defect that the Party E, who belongs to the Guri Police Station D District, tried to notify the Defendant of the disposition, and the Defendant’s complaint was raised.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers in relation to the prevention, suppression and investigation of crimes.

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. A report on internal investigation:

1. Application of field photographs and related Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on the Protection, Observation, etc. of Social Service Order and Article 62-2 of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Community Service Order caused disturbance by Defendant at night, such as taking a bath at a convenience store. The crime of this case is a case in which the police officer in receipt of a report and assaulted the police officer in receipt of the report. The act of blocking or obstructing the police officer's lawful performance of official duties by violence constitutes an act that damages the public interest (public interest) intended to be achieved by the performance of official duties, and at the same

In particular, in light of the fact that it is considerably difficult to compute damages caused by the crime interfering with the performance of official duties, assessing the harm or risk of the crime interfering with the performance of official duties based on the criteria similar to the general violent crime should be avoided, and as seen earlier, there is a need to punish it frightly considering the seriousness of the infringement of legal interests.

In this case, even though the police officer called out and performed official duties was the defendant, the defendant took a bath to the police officer and took a physical emergency room to the police officer, so the crime is the nature of the crime.