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

On July 31, 2018, at around 01:50, the Defendant: (a) reported on July 31, 2018 at the street “C convenience store” located in Ulsandong-gu B; and (b) recommended the police officers affiliated with the D Zone D District District of the Ulsan East Police Station called to the site to have the Defendant returned to the site, and (c) instructed the above E to have the Defendant returned to the site; and (d) assaulted the Defendant at one time, by hand, on the ground that the Defendant prevented the passage of the vehicle, the Defendant was tightly tight and shouldered, with the Defendant’s chest and shouldered at one time at the bar.

As a result, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers in relation to 112 reported duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Each investigation report (the sequence 11, 14 of the evidence list);

1. Application of CCTV images (Evidence 29-30 pages) to the Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime. Article 136 (Selection of Imprisonment or Imprisonment);

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (hereinafter “the grounds for the remaining sentence”), which is favorable to the defendant;

1. The crime of this case on the ground of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is committed by the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, by assaulting the police officer while taking care of the police officer who was urged to return home from the police officer who was dispatched to the scene after receiving a report of 112 under the influence of alcohol. In light of the method and attitude of the crime, the nature of the crime is not good, in light of the crime method and form, the crime is not weak, since the degree of interference with the violence and official duties is not weak, even though there was a record of punishment several times for the crime of this case, and the possibility of criticism is not small, the Defendant committed the crime of this case against the Defendant, or against the depth of the Defendant. On the day of this case, the Defendant was committed against the lessor of a restaurant operated by the Defendant.