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

On June 3, 2018, at around 21:10, the Defendant: (a) received a report from C, a police officer D, etc. on the ground that C was under the influence of alcohol on the ground that C was not under the influence of drinking, and that C was not under the influence of drinking; and (b) received a report from C, a police officer D, etc. on the ground that C was dispatched.

After the Defendant was parked in the vicinity of the police station, the Defendant reported 112 to the effect that “A was found to have discovered the Defendant and reported to the effect that “The former husband was unable to conceal the boom,” and that the police officer F, etc., of the Seoul Southern Police Station Estation, was dispatched again.

At around 22:17 on the same day, the Defendant reported that C was exposed to the same place as the police officer F, etc. at the same place, and that C was able to see, “I would impree it well, humbly tear, humbly tear, huming it, and thrown away,” and the above F was prevented, and “I am hump hume, hume, hume, hume, hume, hume, and hume F when I hume humd with her hand floor, and pushed F’s body with its hair face.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning the prevention, suppression and investigation of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Part of the witness C’s legal statement;

1. A protocol of examination of part of the defendant by prosecution;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the 112 Incident Handling Table;

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended sentence [Scope of Recommendation] Where the scope of mitigation area (i.e., obstruction of performance of official duties or coercion of duties) (i.e., special mitigation) (i., assault, intimidation, deceptive scheme, or obstruction of official duties is insignificant [decision of sentence] the defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc. are considered.