[criminal records] On February 7, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment with prison labor by obstructing business operations at the Seoul High Court, and completed the execution of the sentence at the Seoul Detention Center on May 21, 2014.

[2] On April 9, 2017, at around 23:23, the Defendant: (a) reported on April 23, 2017, that the taxi rate is being raised at the front of the Seoul Seongbuk-gu Seoul city; and (b) stated that the Defendant, upon receiving a 112 report that the taxi rate is being raised on the front of the D, was requested by the slopeF affiliated with the Seongbuk-gu Police Station Epia, which called “I want not to know the circumstances and present identification card; and (c) stated that the test “I want to be arrested, son son son son son son son, son son son son son son son son son son son, son son son son son son son son son.”

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement concerning G and F;

1. A report on investigation (tax straw straw straw straws);

1. Previous convictions: The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquire about criminal history and report criminal investigations (the confirmation of repeated crimes, etc.);

1. Relevant Article 136 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Reasons for sentencing Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes;

1. The scope of the recommended punishment on the sentencing criteria [the scope of the recommended punishment] and the basic area (six months to one year and four months) (the prevention of interference with the performance of official duties and the coercion of official duties) shall be limited to the category 1 (the prevention of interference with the performance of official duties).

2. Circumstances disadvantageous to the decision of sentence: In light of the fact that the assault against the victimized police officer was not easy, and that another person committed the instant crime even though he had already been punished for the same kind of crime, etc., the risk of repeating the crime appears to be high, and that the circumstances favorable to the fact that the instant crime was committed during the period of repeated crime with the criminal record as indicated in the ruling are against the mistake: the above circumstances and the defendant's age, sex, career, home environment, motive and means of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., are all the conditions of sentencing specified in the pleadings of the instant case.