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

On September 21, 2016, at around 03:40, the Defendant: (a) 112 reported that “the drunk person was unable to get a sound and live at the front of the Adong parking lot B,” and the Defendant assaulted the Defendant to ask questions about his personal information and residence from D, etc. who was dispatched to the liber Police Station C Zone D, etc., and to the police officer, and to the face of the said D.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of statutes governing the place of work;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 136 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Code of the Suspension of Execution [Scope of Recommendation] No person who does not exist in the basic area (6-1-4 months) of the obstruction of performance of official duties (6-1-1-4 months) [Judgment of sentence] The defendant has been punished several times for violent crimes, but repeats the crime of this case despite the fact that the defendant had been punished several times of punishment, it is disadvantageous to the victim police officers, or that the defendant interfered with the execution of official duties to display drinking, by recognizing the crime of this case, he reflects the wrong, by recognizing the crime of this case, is an contingent crime while under the influence of alcohol, not directly assault the body of the damaged police officers, and other favorable circumstances such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive or circumstance of the crime, etc., and all the conditions of sentencing after the crime shall be determined as per the order.