Ulsan Metropolitan City Group:

Provided, That the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive, and the defendant shall be ordered to be put on probation for one year.

“200 Highest 2216

No one shall interfere with fire-fighting activities by using violence or intimidation to fire fighters dispatched for fire-fighting activities, such as fire extinguishment, lifesaving, first-aid services, etc., without justifiable grounds. Nevertheless, the Defendant reported on April 20, 2020 that " female patients were using an excessive amount of emulsion" in the Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun around 03:18, 200 and called "the female patients were dispatched to the scene for lifesaving and first-aid services, and was trying to carry the Defendant's wife's wife's wife's wife's wife's wife's wife's name, first-aid services, and first-aid services belonging to the 119 Safety Center, from the fire fighters belonging to the 119 Safety Center, and the pet dog's name was unable to move to the first-aid and first-aid services, and the Defendant was off from the front part of the said fire fighter's face," and "the Defendant was off from the front part of the said fire fighter's body's face,".

“20 Highest 4877

At around 00:20 on October 23, 2020, the Defendant: (a) expressed that the Defendant was instructed to pay KRW 6,500 on the part of the police box in front of the police box in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, the head of the Defendant, who was in front of the police box in front of the police box in front of the police box in the Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, and that the passengers did not get out of the taxi without paying the taxi expenses; (b) on the ground that he did not comply with the notification of penalty payment to the unclaimed vehicle, the Defendant was issued a penalty payment notification to the unclaimed vehicle on the ground that he did not comply with the notification even though the police box in charge of the police box in front of the police box in front of the police box in front of the police box in front of the defendant's head, and assaulted the left-hand bridge of the lowest guard in front of the vehicle.

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

Summary of Evidence

(Omission)

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 50 subparagraph 1 (c) and 16 (2) of the Framework Act on Fire Services, and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 (Mutual Violation of the Framework Act on Fire Services) of the Criminal Act

1. Selection of punishment;

Imprisonment Selection

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as "the grounds for two-year punishment"), which is favorable to the accused, shall be considered.

1. Probation;

Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

1. The grounds for sentencing: Imprisonment with labor for a period from one month to seven years;

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) First offense (Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties);

[Determination of Punishment] The obstruction of Performance of Official Duties, 01. [No. 1] The obstruction of performance of official duties/non-performance of official duties

[Special Escopics] Reductions: In a case where the degree of violence, intimidation, or deceptive scheme is minor;

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Reduction Area, Imprisonment from one month to eight months

(b) Second crime (unestablished crime);

(c) Scope of recommendations based on standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one month (a concurrent crime with an offense for which no sentencing guidelines are set);

(d) Scope of recommended sentences revised by applicable sentences: From January to July of imprisonment (in cases where the upper limit of the range of sentence recommended by the sentencing guidelines is inconsistent with the statutory applicable sentences, it shall be in accordance with the statutory applicable sentences).

3. Determination of sentence;

Reasons for sentencing

The crimes of this case committed in unfavorable circumstances are highly likely to be subject to criticism by the law and order and the public authority. The Defendant committed the crime of violating the Framework Act on Fire Services, such as assaulting and threatening fire fighters for a considerable period of time to delay the patient's transfer, and committed the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties by assaulting the police officers who have been in uniform during the trial. The Defendant has been punished for the obstruction of the performance of official duties twice.

It appears that the defendant is a favorable normal and contingent crime, and the defendant is recognized and reflected in the crime. The victim police officer in the obstruction of performance of official duties does not want to be punished by the defendant. There is a family member to be supported by the defendant. There is no history that the defendant has been punished by imprisonment or heavier punishment.

In addition, the punishment as ordered shall be determined in full view of all the circumstances such as the age, character and conduct, environment, occupation, motive and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc. and the conditions of the punishment as shown in the pleading.