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.

The Defendant stated the facts charged in around 09:55 on August 22, 2017 as “ around 09:55 on August 21, 2017.” However, according to the legitimate examination of evidence by this court, it is apparent that this is a clerical error in the “ around 09:55 on August 22, 2017.” As such, the facts charged were revised as above.

A police officer E (S 45) of the same police box at a police box of the South Maritime Police Station D located in C of the South Maritime Affairs and the South Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, who was able to be able to take a rhetoral and her home to the police officer E (S 45) of the same police box.

R. H. H. H. H. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. E. L. L. L.W.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the above E police box.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a criminal investigation report (including all the crimes committed by the suspect, accompanying a place of work, photographs attached to him/her, CDs, and copies of a place of work listed inCCTV);

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

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Application of the sentencing criteria [Scope of the recommended punishment] and interference with the execution of public duties, the mitigated area (one month to eight months) (a person who interferes with the performance of public duties and coercion of duties) (a person who has been specially mitigated) is not subject to punishment;

2. The crime of interference with the performance of official duties by police officers, such as this case, is not good in that it seriously undermines police officers' pride and desire to work and eventually causes damage to the general public.

Although the defendant should be punished strictly, considering all the sentencing factors revealed in the trial process of this case, such as the defendant's reflection, the fact that the defendant has no record of punishment for the same kind of crime, the fact that the damaged police officer does not want the punishment against the defendant, and the age, sex, environment, circumstances, circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment shall be determined as ordered.