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

On August 22, 2017, the Defendant, at the “D” shop located in Youngdo C of Busan on August 22, 2017, assaulted the Defendant, i.e., “F., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f., f.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statements made to F and G;

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

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

1. Scope of recommendations - Types 1 (Interference with and Forced Performance of Official Duties) (1 to 8 months) in the mitigated area; - Special mitigated persons: Where the degree of violence, intimidation, deceptive scheme, or interference with official duties is minor;

2. It is necessary to strictly punish a person who interferes with the decision-making of a sentence.

However, considering the fact that the defendant had been sentenced to a fine in recent years, the execution of a sentence is suspended in consideration of the contents and degree of interference with the execution of official duties, and the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive and circumstance of a crime, and the circumstances after a crime are considered. It is so decided as per Disposition.