At around 02:10 on September 24, 2015, the Defendant: “On the side of the Kimpo-si B, Kimpo-si, c 307, c. 304, c. Do,” the Defendant received the Defendant’s 112 report, and sent to the Party A’s own patrol vehicle in the circumstances where the Kimpo-si D District unit of the Kimpo-gu Police Station D, who called the site and received a request for returning home from E, to the Party A’s own patrol vehicle in receipt of the Defendant’s 112 report, and c.e., the Defendant c., “this c.e., it would have to grow because it would have been reported when c.e., the c., the c., the c. and the c. d. d. d., the Defendant d., and d., d., d., d., d., d....

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. Notification of a department related to the reporting of D district large-scale work days and 112 cases;

1. Application of related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of fines, and the choice of fines;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. In light of the reasoning of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the sentencing of the instant crime is not good, but it is so decided as per Disposition by taking into account the following factors: (a) the degree of damage inflicted by the police officer who suffered damage does not focus on the degree of damage; (b) the confession and reflect on the crime; (c) the fact that the victim police officer agreed with the victim police officer;