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.

After having arrived at a destination, the Defendant tried to assault a taxi driver without paying a taxi fee, and the taxi engineer reported 112.

On April 18, 2016, at around 06:23, the Defendant: (a) confirmed the reason why C of the police box called up after receiving a report on April 18, 2016 was not aware of the taxi expenses to the Defendant; and (b) subsequently, the Defendant assaulted C’s face at the time of the death of the shote at the time, one time, and several times, including a part of the said box.

Accordingly, the Defendant, who is a public official, interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the reporting processing of C C’s 112.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Statement made by the police against D or C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on investigation reporting;

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

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

1. Although the defendant's liability for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act is one of the reasons for sentencing. However, the defendant's confession and reflects the defendant, the defendant committed the crime of this case contingently in the course of detention, the defendant's age, sex, conduct, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., and all other circumstances constituting the conditions for sentencing as shown in the trial process, including the defendant's age, sex, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence after the crime, shall be determined as ordered