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

On January 18, 2019, around 17:15, the Defendant identified the details of the report against D by the E police station affiliated with the E police station dispatched after receiving a report from D, the wife in front of the B house C in Gyeyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoul, and receiving a report from D on 112.

E. E. E. E. He refused all g., why he d's d's d's d's d's d's d's d', and the F's d's f's d's f's f's f's f's f's f's f's f's f's h's f's h's f's h's f's f's h's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's f's

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of each police protocol to G and F

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime concerned;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. In order to establish the legal order of the country of reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act and eradicate the light of public authority, it is necessary to strictize the crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties.

The degree of violence is not easy.

However, the defendant shows his attitude to reflect his mistake.

It is the first crime.

Other circumstances shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the circumstances leading to the crime of this case, the causes of conflict between the defendant and his/her spouse as an opportunity to dispatch police officers, the degree of interference with public duties, the age, character and conduct, living environment of the defendant, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., shall be determined as ordered.