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

On December 13, 2018, at around 00:00, the Defendant: (a) received 112 report on the front side of Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City B, and solicited the police officer D belonging to the Seoul Mine Police Station C District to return home, and did not return home to the police officer D with his hand; (b) when D gets off from the patrol car, it threatens D to “spack spacks, fice spacks,” and assaulted D at one time.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning 112 report handling duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (on-site video viewing reports), investigation reports (to hear statements by a victim police officer and reporting thereon);

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 under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as the "justifiable circumstances") of the suspended sentence;

1. Scope of recommendations according to the sentencing guidelines (decision of type), the category of obstruction of performance of official duties, the obstruction of performance of official duties, and the category 1 (Special Aggravation of Punishment): Where the degree of violence is insignificant (the scope of recommendations): Not more than eight months;

2. The defendant who has been sentenced to a sentence shall assault a victimized police officer in the course of performing his/her duties and interfere with his/her legitimate execution of duties, and the liability for such crime is not minor;

In addition, although the defendant was not a crime of the same kind as this case, he was punished several times by a fine, and re-offendered.

However, the fact that the defendant is recognized as committing the crime of this case and there was no past record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine, and the fact that there was no record of punishment for obstruction of performance of official duties, etc. are considered as favorable to the defendant.

Defendant. Other defendant.