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

On August 19, 2017, the Defendant: (a) 23:15, around 23:15, 2017, on the road along the Myeong-ri area, including the Dog-ri area of Gyeongnam-gun, and (b) she was drunk and returned home a cab operated by B under the influence of alcohol, and (c) she expressed the Defendant’s desire to b, i.e., e., she was a police officer of the police station, who was called up upon the report of the above B, to have her home home, and she she would not have to have her home home, and she committed assault on the part of the above police officer’s left buck bridge.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of police reports and the maintenance of public order.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of each police statement protocol law to C and B;

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 on the suspended execution;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act / [Scope of Recommendation] There is no basic area (from June to one year and six months) (the person who has been subject to special sentencing) of Type 1 (Interference with the performance of official duties and coercion of duties) [Determination of sentence] The sentencing conditions indicated in the records, such as the defendant's age, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., shall be determined within the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines, taking into account the following factors: