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

On November 18, 2019, the Defendant: (a) received a 112 report that the Defendant was a person who was forced to drive a scambnd from the scamb in Gyeyang-gu, Goyang-gu; and (b) received an order from the Defendant to return home from the E police officer, the circumstances surrounding the position of the D Zone at the Goyang Police Station D, and the 112 report processing; and (c) sought to carry the above E liquid camping to take the 112 report processing and take the scambling, but the Defendant’s body was destroyed by having the scambling.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers on crime prevention and investigation.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (the result of checking a liquid camping dynamic image);

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The exercise of force against police officers with reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act requires strict punishment, and the fact that the defendant committed a second offense despite his/her past record of punishment for the same kind of crime is disadvantageous.

However, the sentencing conditions of Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, after considering the fact that the defendant recognized the crime and reflects the fact that there is no record of punishment exceeding the fine, etc., shall be determined like the order.