A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (5 million won of a fine) is too unhued and unfair.

Judgment

In full view of the various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s act of obstructing the performance of official duties by police officers may hinder the establishment of legal order, and it is necessary to strictly punish the Defendant in that it harms the authority of the public authority. The instant crime is unfair because the Defendant spits spits the police officers who dispatched to the Defendant to handle the reported duties, and takes the face of the police officers by hand, taking advantage of the nature of the crime. The offense is inappropriate, and the offense is deemed to be reasonable, and the offense in this case is likely to have been committed again during the suspension period of the execution of the instant crime, and the Defendant committed the instant crime again during the suspension period of the execution of the same crime, and the Defendant committed the instant crime again during the suspension period of the execution of the Defendant’s age, occupation, character and conduct, environment, etc.

The prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is justified.

As the prosecutor's appeal is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows.

[The reasoning of the judgment used] Around 23:20 on December 27, 2019, the Defendant was sent to the Defendant’s home located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on the 112 report that “Abscising a woman to drink with drinking” and “Abscising a woman to drink with drinking with drinking with drinking with drinking with drinking with drinking with drinking with drinking with drinking with drinking with drinking with drinking with drinking with drinking with drinking with drinking with drinking with drinking with drinking with drinking with drinking with drinking with drinking with drinking with drinking with drinking with drinking with drinking with the view to “Abscison’s superior, spack with drinking with drinking with drinking with drinking with drinking with drinking with drinking with drinking with drinking with

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers in regard to the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. The legal statement of witness D and E;

1. Application of field video files CD-related statutes;

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

1. As seen earlier by police officers under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, the crime of assault was somewhat caused by F.