around 02:15 on February 7, 2018, the Defendant reported 112 as an assault case between E and F, the Defendant’s wife, and called out, on the front side of the D apartment in Busan Y, which was in front of the D apartment in Busan Y, and was assaulted by F, the Plaintiff secured a female’s statement, and revealed the affiliation and status of the Defendant and F, who was in his place, and expressed the status to the Defendant and F, who was in his possession, demanded confirmation of identity, and expressed the above H’s face as a hand-to-face upon demanding confirmation of identity to the F. In relation to the above case, the Defendant was able to take the face of the F, as well as I’s face of the same district unit.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the police officers’ legitimate performance of their duties on the handling of the 112 Report Report case, and at the same time, damaged the character of the Defendant’s 14-day medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made to H and I by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis certificate;

1. Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties) and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act;

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

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order [Scope of the sentencing guidelines] The sentence shall be imposed in consideration of the following: (a) the basic area of the first type (fe.g., interference with the performance of official duties and coercion of duties) (f.g., June to one year and six months); (b) the defendant was sentenced to a stay of execution in one year and six months due to the crime of causing injury or injury to the performance of special official duties in 2010; (c) the defendant was sentenced to a stay of execution in one year and six months; (d) the victim police officers are two and the degree of interference with official duties is not minor; and (e) there is no room for considering the circumstances; and (e) the obstruction of the performance of official duties is difficult to consider the agreement with the police officers who suffered damage as an important sentencing factor due to the crime that protects national legal interests.

The defendant's age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc.