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

1. Around 06:00 on December 14, 2018, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s emergency medical services by force on the grounds that he/she did not promptly treat himself/herself in the course of receiving treatment from the victim D, who is a doctor on duty, at the C hospital emergency room located in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Seoul Special Metropolitan City), on the ground that he/she did not promptly perform his/her duties. Whether he/she does not undergo treatment when two hours have elapsed since he/she was laid in the emergency room.

2. On December 14, 2018, at around 06:55 on December 14, 2018, the Defendant: (a) received 112 report that “the patient gets out of an emergency room,” among the places where the Defendant was traveling along, as described in paragraph (1), and received the notification that “the patient gets out of an emergency room,” and she sees the words “the patient gets out of the emergency room,” and took part in the face of the police station’s right by hand.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of the 112 reported case by the police officer.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The statement of each police officer made to F and G;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (CCTV image verification);

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, and Articles 314 (1) and 136 (1) of the Criminal Act which choose a penalty;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. Although there is no record of punishment exceeding the fine within the last ten years, there is a family member to support the crime of this case, since it interferes with the reason of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Act and assaults the police officer who called out with the reason of sentencing, but there is no record of punishment exceeding the punishment within the last ten years.