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

On June 9, 2019, at around 00:10, the Defendant: (a) committed an act of assaulting the said E’s chest in front of the “Cnoman shop” located in the Dong-gu, Busan; (b) intending to take a bath to the said main shop and to enter into the main shop; and (c) frankly, the Defendant, upon receiving a 112 report, sent to the head of the Dong-dong Police Station D District Unit of the Busan East Police Station, who was called out, “I fright, fright, fright, fright, fright, fright, fright, fright, fright, fright, fright,” and frighting the said E’s chest into the main shop.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning police statements to E;

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

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines [decision of types] of the obstruction of performance of official duties: [Type 1] No person shall be subject to the obstruction of performance of official duties or coercion of official duties [the scope of recommended areas and recommendations] (the scope of recommended areas and recommendations] basic area, six months to one year and six months;

2. Determination of sentence is against the defendant, there is no record of criminal punishment other than a long-term fine due to drunk driving, and the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc. shall be comprehensively considered in determining the punishment as ordered by the order of various sentencing specified in the arguments of this case.