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

On December 18, 2019, the Defendant appears to have written the written indictment in the front side of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, with 112 reporting that a male is female, D, and F, written in the indictment of the Seoul Dongdaemun-gu Police Station C police box assigned to the police station of Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, and F, sent to the police station, after receiving 11

In order to ask questions about the circumstances of the case from the police officer, he saw, "Neman Do Do Do Do Do Do Do gu gu gue", he saw him as a flab, and assaulted the flab of the police officer as his hand.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning 112 reports.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. E statements;

1. Investigation report (statements by reporters) and investigation report (verification of documentary evidence);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing the 112 Reporting Case Handling List;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order;

1. The scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines [the range of the recommended sentence] of the obstruction of performance of official duties or the coercion of official duties (the scope of the recommended sentence and the recommended sentence], the basic area of the recommendation [the scope of the recommended sentence], six months to one year and six months;

2. The Defendant, upon receiving a report from the reporter on the part of a couple’s fighting on the road, expressed the police officer’s desire to do so, and exercised the force of force by cutting down the police officer’s breath, salke, etc., which led to the occurrence of the police officer’s breath in the line.

Since the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is a crime that undermines the function of the state by nullifying the legitimate exercise of public authority, it is necessary to severely punish the defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant recognized the crime of this case and opposed to the mistake.

Although the defendant has been punished four times for a crime of double-class, he/she has been punished in excess of the same or similar crime or fine.