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 December 5, 2017, the Defendant: (a) at the D convenience store located in Heung-gu, Soung-gu, Cheongju-si; (b) at around 03:57 on December 5, 2017, the Defendant, upon receiving a report of 112 that he was frighting in the process of being frighting due to the question of the Trat return, proposed the Defendant to have the frighting in the house and frighting out, with a chiller F belonging to the E-gu, the Cheongju Police Station E-gu, Cheongdong-gu, Cheongju-gu, E-gu, E-gu, Seoul, which called “Woo fum fum fum fum fum fum fum fumb

As a result, 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. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Copy of the protocol concerning interrogation of the police officer in G;

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

1. A H statement;

1. Application of CCTV Acts and subordinate statutes;

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 Act on the Suspension of Execution [Scope of Recommendation] Application of the sentencing criteria for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act / [In the event that the degree of violence, intimidation, deceptive scheme, or obstruction of public duty is minor, the decision of sentence shall be made in accordance with Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution of Public Duties. In order to establish the law and order of the State for a year of suspended execution in April and eradicate the light of public authority, a serious degree of punishment interference with the execution of public duties is required.

However, the defendant is in profoundly against his wrongness.

The degree of violence and obstruction of official duties is not much serious, and the damaged police officers did not have any injury.

At the time of the instant case, the Defendant took a bath to the police officers who called for one’s own activities at the time of the instant case, but appears to have committed the instant crime in a timely and contingent manner at the end of the victimized police officers.

Although the defendant has been sentenced to a fine several times for other crimes, there is no criminal record for the same kind, and the last time after being punished in 2000 to the crime of this case.