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

On July 19, 2014, around 11:55, the Defendant 23-1, the Amark Sari-ro 23-1, the Amar Sari-gun, the Gimyeong-gu, the Defendant her head was drunked by a police officer, a police officer, who was dispatched after receiving 112 a report, to the Assistant C, who was a police officer in charge of the Yangyang-gu Police Station B police box called “at this age, he must go back to the law, with a few ages of age,” and “Saar Mad. I know the Republic of Korea,” and assaulted the Defendant’s head in such a way as to go to the body of the said C or pushed the Defendant.

Accordingly, the Defendant assaulted C as above and interfered with the legitimate performance of duties by police officers on the handling of 112 reported duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to C, D, and E;

1. Application of each statute of the F, G, and E;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Despite the past records of punishment for obstruction of the performance of official duties for the sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act, the fact that the crime of this case is committed again is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the sentencing grounds prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the fact that the defendant has led to the confession of the crime and reflects the crime, shall be decided as per Disposition.