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

On June 23, 2018, at around 21:10, the Defendant: (a) took a 112-report, and took a bath, such as the police officer D, police officer, and police officer, who was urged to return home from the police officer, “I am inevitably”, “I am to come back, I am to go off, I am to go off,” and used a flab and flabed E’s right hand hand hand, which would restrain the Defendant.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made with respect to E and D;

1. A criminal investigation report (Attachment of images and photographs);

1. A photograph of a closure;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to public officials' copies of evidence;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

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

1. Circumstances unfavorable to sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act: The defendant exercised violence against police officers who perform their legitimate duties, and the nature of such crime is not good.

The favorable circumstances: The mistake is recognized and reflected.

There is no record of punishment for the same crime.

In addition, the punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the motive and background of the crime, the degree of interference with the execution of violence and official duties, the circumstances after the crime, and various sentencing conditions shown in the theory of change.