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

On March 29, 2015, at least 00:30, the Defendant: (a) sent to the site after receiving a report that a preceptor was used on the front of the her motherel in Kimhae-si B; and (b) sent the site to E (25 years of age) affiliated with the D District of Kimhae-gu Police Station D District of Kimhae-gu, which verified the details of the report; and (c) assaulted the Defendant at least twice of the face of the above E, i.e., having the Defendant go home to return to the taxi.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of reports by the above E, a police official.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to police statements made to F and E;

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

1. Reasons for the sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Code of the Suspension of Execution [Scope of Recommendation] There is no basic area (6 to 1 year and 4 months) of the obstruction of performance of official duties (decision of sentence] [decision of a special person] The crime of obstructing the performance of official duties by using violence against police officers without any reason. However, since there is no criminal history of the same kind of crime and the mistake are divided, the punishment as ordered in the Disposition shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the sentencing conditions as shown in the arguments, such as the defendant's age, character, character, family environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.