except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On October 28, 2016, at around 00:57, the Defendant: (a) 112 reported that “E” in front of a restaurant, which is located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, was drunk, and sent to the site on the ground that G belonging to the Seoul Western Police Station F District of Seoul Western Police Station (hereinafter “F District”) solicits the said police officer to return home; (b) stated that “this son, Nene, Ieas, Ieas, Ieas, Ieas, Ieas, Ieas, Ieas, Ieas, Ieas, Ieas, Ieas, Ieas, and assaulted the damaged police officer about the right side of the damaged police officer.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of the 112 reported case and the protection of the host.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. Photographs of the victim;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (Attachment of a medical certificate for a victim);

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

1. In light of the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant for the reason of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act committed the instant crime against the police officer in spite of the fact that he/she had been punished for the same kind of crime, and again, he/she suffered bodily injury by using direct violence against the police officer, etc., the defendant recognized his/her mistake, and the fact that the defendant has no other penalty other than the punishment imposed once by a fine, etc., a sentence shall be determined