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

On April 23, 2020, at around 21:48, the Defendant: (a) sent a notice of 112 report to the head of the building C, which is one’s own residence in the Namdong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, and (b) sent to the head of the victim police station D, Incheonnam Police Station D, who called “E”, sent to the police after reporting the head of the victim’s horse, etc. belonging to the Namnam Police Station D, which called “I have been reported by the head of the police, so I have been going to go to the police, and I have been out of the front, celebrhs, so I have taken dangerous actions, such as opening the cell window,” and (c) written indictment to refrain from doing so, however, the “F” is clearly stated in the record E, and thus, is corrected ex officio.

The lower court assaulted the lower court’s chest once as his hand.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning 112 reports.

Summary of Evidence

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as on-site photographs and cellular video photographs of the police in relation to the defendant's legal statement E;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as the "justifiable circumstances") of the suspended sentence;

1. The scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines [decision of type] the obstruction of performance of official duties [Type 1]/ the coercion of official duties [the scope of the recommended area and the punishment of recommendation], the basic area of the recommendation [the scope of the recommendation area and the punishment of recommendation], six months to one year and six months;

2. The sentence of the instant crime, which was determined by the sentence, is not sufficient to commit the instant crime by assaulting the police officer in charge of performing his duties.

On the other hand, it is reasonable to consider the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and is against the defendant, and that the defendant has no record of punishment for the same kind of crime.

In addition, the sentencing factors specified in the records and arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., shall be determined within the scope of the recommended sentencing criteria, such as the orders.