However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

around 23:41 on September 13, 2016, the Defendant reported 112 to the “C Singing practice hall” located in Daejeon, Jung-gu, Daejeon to the effect that “I will know about Does, I will visit police officers,” and the instant case to the Daejeon Police Station D police station in Daejeon, E, and police officers, who called, “I may employ Does,” and explained that I want to open the above E’s identification card and open the above E’s identity card to prevent the above E from being posted to the back of the police officers on the ground that I want to open the above E’s identity card and open the above E’s identity card on September 14, 2016.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Ethical letters;

1. Application of the statutes governing photographs at the time of crime;

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 provides that the defendant, on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the suspended sentence, shall be punished strictly, for the act of exercising force against a police officer who performs official duties. However, the defendant confessions the crime of this case, does not have any record of crime exceeding the fine, and does not have the same criminal record.