Provided, That the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final.

On January 18, 2020, the Defendant: (a) on January 18, 2020, on the road in front of the Southern-gu Cballing Station, at the port of port, 00:15, on the road in front of the Defendant’s wife D’s vehicle, and (b) on the part of the Defendant’s wife, she was called up with a report of 112 to the effect that “E white scar is under the influence of drinking,” and (c) the slope G, who was called up, was stopped by the Fbring Station at the Port Police Station at the port of the Republic of Korea, to stop the said high scar, was under the influence of drinking, but was under the influence of drinking, but was not at the influence of drinking, she was under the influence of drinking, and (d) she was under the influence of assault and plucking by her hand.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the police officer's legitimate performance of duties on the handling of 112 reports and traffic control.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. A confirmation (A), a notice of arrest or detention (A), a report on internal investigation (a) and a report on internal investigation (where such report is filed), a report on internal investigation (where such report is filed), a record of handling 112 reported cases, a post box working for a 112 police box, a criminal investigation report ( night), a photographic, a video CD or a criminal investigation report (to listen to a suspect's telephone statement);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to criminal records, etc. inquiry reports (A) and investigation reports (verification of criminal records of a suspect);

1. We affirm the facts charged to the effect that the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, such as the facts charged, was committed in the process of being arrested as a flagrant offender while the pertinent provision on the facts charged, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act regarding the choice of punishment, the defendant and defense counsel stated that the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties was committed, and thus, constitutes self-defense by resisting illegal arrest, even though they did not commit the crime of obstruction of official duties.

In light of the above evidence, the defendant had been engaged in obstruction of the performance of official duties.