However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On June 11, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 22:45, at the street in front of the Seoul Southern-gu Seoul Southern-gu C, and (b) “A male who had been living in front of his house” after receiving a report from D 112; and (c) the border F of the Seoul Gangnam Police Station E District called “I f of the disturbance before the victim’s house.”

“F. F. F. F. F. F. Does the N. F. F. F. “n.e., the N. N. police gue;”

The bit of bit of bit of bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a

On the other hand, the Defendant continued to commit assault by cutting down a balp of F.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of reports and the prevention of crimes by police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Partial statement of the witness D;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. 112 A list of reported cases;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs damaged;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, including observation of protection and community service order;

1. The scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for one month to five years; and

2. The scope of the recommended punishment on the sentencing criteria [the scope of the recommended punishment] and the basic area (referring to six months to one year and four months from imprisonment) of the types of the public service (Interference with the performance of public service and coercion of duty].

3. The sentence of this case is consistent with the Defendant’s criminal act of this case; the police officer F, upon receiving D’s report 112, notified the Defendant of the 112 reported and sent warning that he would not repeat the same act; the Defendant committed the crime of this case; the police officer F, the injury level and degree of the Defendant’s damage; the Defendant’s age, family relation, and tendency; and all other circumstances shown in the argument of this case, including the Defendant’s age, family relation, etc., shall be determined as ordered by the order.