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.

On October 8, 2016, the Defendant: (a) on October 23:50, 2016, the police box belonging to the police box of the Gyeongnam Sea Police Station, called the Defendant upon receiving a report to the effect that the proprietor in the front of the “C” located in the Gu, who was called the Defendant, avoided the disturbance; and (b) on October 23:50, 2016, the Defendant prevented the Defendant.

“Abrepted with the chest of the above D, which was a drinking, and the above D told that “Abrepted to interfere with the performance of official duties, so that I could have been arrested”, and assaulted the above D’s chest and the part at 7 to 8 times for drinking, etc.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution (including the confession and reflect of the defendant, the defendant has no record of punishment, in addition to punishment of fines for violence on one occasion around 1988, and the circumstances, such as the circumstances leading to the instant crime, the degree of damage, and the circumstances in which the defendant supports his/her mother, etc.);