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

At around 18:40 on March 24, 2014, the Defendant: (a) reported within a restaurant with the trade name “D” located in Kuju-si, and received 112 report from the proprietor; (b) who was demanded the said police officer to return home from the F. of the circumstances belonging to the Kuju Police Station E District Unit of the Kuju Police Station, the Defendant used the said police officer to assault the said police officer “f.o.b. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the police statement concerning G;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on probation and lecture attendance order;

1. The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment for not more than five years;

2. Application of the sentencing criteria;

(a) Determination of types: Crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties, obstruction of performance of official duties, and Category I (Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties);

(b) A special breeder: No person;

(c) Scope of recommendations: Basic area, six months to one year;

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for six months and one year under a suspended sentence (including the fact that he commits an error, the fact that he commits a criminal offense for the same kind of offense, and the fact that the degree of violence is not severe);