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 29, 2018, around 01:15, the Defendant: (a) received a report from 112, stating that “Abreging with a safe guard that was worn before the main point of the D located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, U.S., the Defendant used the said F F’s chest at one time, to whom he was urged by the F for returning home from the police officer assigned to the police station E box of the Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-do, who was called to the site.”

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning the handling of reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. Application of the respective Acts and subordinate statutes of G and H

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended sentence [Type Decision] The reason for the sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act [Attachment Decision] shall be considered as the reason for obstructing the performance of official duties in the basic area [Determination in the sphere of recommendation] / [the scope of recommendation] six months to one year and six months / [whether suspended sentence is suspended] - there are no criminal records of not less than the positive half of the suspended sentence (determination of sentence], the reason and degree of obstructing the performance of official duties, and the criminal records of the defendant.