However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for one year and six months from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On May 5, 2016, at around 01:10, the Defendant: (a) moved on the middle-gu, Busan, Jungdong-gu, 188 U.S. on the road under the influence of alcohol, and the security guard C belonging to the Busan, Jung-gu, Busan, who was called the Defendant to have the Defendant informed him of the her that “I am home, she was fright, she was fright, and her only her he was called the Defendant.” (b) The Defendant saw the Defendant’s left part and the left part of the case at one time.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers in relation to 112 report processing.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of laws and regulations on police statements made to C and D;

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution [the scope of recommendation] There is no person [the person who has been subject to special sentencing] in the basic area (six months to one year and four months) (the person who has been subject to special sentencing] [the decision of sentence] the nature of the crime in this case, there is no history of punishment for the defendant as the same crime, there is no criminal record exceeding the fine, and there is no criminal record exceeding the fine by accident, the crime in this case was committed by accident, reflects the fact, and other matters such as the defendant's age, behavior, environment, etc.