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

On October 3, 2020, at around 21:10, the Defendant: (a) abused the Defendant’s front way in the Namdong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, on the ground that he was forced to interfere with or self-harm the passage of vehicles by going to the road from the border E belonging to the Incheon Southern-dong Police Station D District Unit of the Incheon Southern Police Station, which called “I am ice, I am ice, I am ice, I am ice, I am ice, I am ice, I am ice, I am ice, I am ice, I am ice.”

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. Statement by the police of the defendant E in the court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing field photographs of the report processing table of 112 cases;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on Probation;

1. Scope of punishment by law: Not more than five years of imprisonment;

2. The scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines [decision of types] of the obstruction of performance of official duties: [Type 1] No person shall be subject to the obstruction of performance of official duties or coercion of official duties [the scope of recommended areas and recommendations] (the scope of recommended areas and recommendations] basic area, six months to one year and six months.

3. The crime of this case committed by the defendant who seems to have verbally abused the police officer and interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by the police officer. In light of the content of the crime, the criminal liability is grave, the degree of obstruction of performance of duties by the defendant is not less complicated, the defendant has not yet been able to receive a letter from the damaged police officer, and the defendant has the same kind of power, and the circumstances unfavorable to the defendant are recognized.

However, the defendant committed the crime of this case in a somewhat contingent manner.