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

On June 22, 2017, 02:13, the Defendant: (a) on the agricultural road in front of the agricultural community located in the Gumi-si Culture on July 22, 2017; (b) on the first day of the agricultural community located in the Gumi-si Culture; and (c) on the first day of the agricultural community located in the Gumi-si Culture, the Defendant, upon receiving a report from the Defendant, 11

".............. the defendant is likely to cause harm to his or another person's life, body, or property under the influence of alcohol."

The police officers determined that they were able to board the patrol vehicle in order to protect the defendant, and were able to return home in the vicinity of the defendant's residence. At around 02:45 on the same day, the police officers assaulted the police officer's slope G's slope level belonging to the CJ from the F side of the F side of the Gu-Si, Si, Gu-si, Si, 00 on one occasion as a hand, and the police officer tried to kill the police officer's bat with his hand.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of reports and protective measures by police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the investigative report (12 report relating to the suspect);

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of punishment for the crime;

1. In order to establish the legal order and order of the country with reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act and eradicate the light of the public authority, there is a need to strictly punish a crime obstructing the performance of official duties, and the fact that the defendant can have been punished due to the crime of assault or obstruction of business.

However, the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflected against the defendant, the fact that the defendant is a disabled person of grade 2 with intellectual disability and is a recipient of basic living who is not suitable for health and economic conditions as a recipient of basic living, etc. In addition, the defendant's age, sex, environment, circumstances after the crime, etc., and the reasons for the sentencing specified in the records of this case and the theory of changes shall be determined as ordered by the order.