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

around 01:50 on November 29, 2018, the Defendant: (a) at the Defendant’s dwelling place located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Building C; (b) the Defendant’s 112 reported and sent out by the Defendant’s wife that “it is impossible to cope with the Defendant’s noise due to drinking;” and (c) the circumstances leading up to the Seoul Dongdaemun-gu Police Station D Boxes sent out after receiving the Defendant’s report, attempted to separate the Defendant’s wife and hear the Defendant’s identity; and (d) the Defendant’s name “I would like to separate the gathering of the police officer from his inside, without permission, to separate them; and (d) “I would have been punished for obstruction of performance of performance of official duties by putting the police officer’s kis, who lives in, even before the inside,” and “I would have been able to take a drinking wall continuously, such as “I would have kid it sent out without sound; and (e) h will have the Defendant knick with his son hand.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers in relation to 112 reported handling duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Each police statement of E and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing the 112 Reporting Case Handling Table;

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

1. The scope of recommendations according to the sentencing guidelines for the sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the grounds of the suspended sentence [Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution [Article 1] The obstruction of performance of official duties [Article 1] The basic area of the obstruction of performance of official duties [the scope of recommendations and recommendations], the criminal records against the defendant who has been sentenced for six months to one year and six months, are coming back to the crime of this case even if there are several criminal records against the defendant, and the crime of this case in this case is deemed to have been committed again again. Considering the fact that the crime of this case was committed by dispatched after receiving a report and exercising physical power against the

However, there is no criminal history of the defendant, and the defendant is a contingent crime of this case.