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

At around 09:30 on October 6, 2015, the Defendant recommended the Defendant to return home on the road B in front of the Gyeonggi-do 2015, “A person in South Korea has been reported,” and the police officers belonging to the Silung Police Station who called up after receiving 112 reports, the Defendant sought to go home to the Defendant, and the Defendant attempted to go home to his own patrol, and recommended him to go home again, and subsequently, the Defendant used the said C’s title twice in his hand and assaulted the said C.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on handling 112 reports.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to evidence, photographs, etc., work log, and copies of public official identification;

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

1. The reason for the sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Code of the Suspension of Execution [Scope of Recommendation] The basic area (6-1 year and April) of the obstruction of performance of official duties (the decision of the sentence] of the basic area (6-1 year and April) of the same Act (the decision of the sentence] of the crime of this case is not easy, but the case of the crime of this case is one time, but the criminal defendant reflects the wrong, the defendant does not have any criminal record other than the fine one time, and all other factors for the sentencing under Article 51