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

On October 4, 2019, at around 22:05, the Defendant avoided disturbance, such as pressing high school students, who were under the influence of alcohol in front of the C New Airport C, Gohap-gun, Gohap-gun, and who was under the influence of alcohol, and threatened E with any injury to the body and life of E and F, such as drinking and intending to see the circumstances of the area where E and F sent after receiving 112 reports. After E, the Defendant went to ask for the on-site circumstances, he and she erred. He and she met with the inside. He and she met. He and she sees it from the place of the house. He and she sees it.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on 112 reported handling.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement to F and E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report internal investigation (Attachment to 112 Report List);

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime concerned;

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

1. Selection of a sentence of imprisonment with prison labor;

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines [decision of type] the obstruction of performance of official duties [Type 1]/ the obstruction of performance of official duties [the scope of recommendation field and recommendation range] there is no person subject to the coercion of official duties] (the scope of recommendation field and recommendation range] basic area, six months to one year and six months;

2. Determination of sentence shall be strictly punished against the defendant in light of the circumstances and details of the instant crime that the defendant, who received a report of 112 and obstructed the performance of official duties by threatening the police officer. However, considering the favorable circumstances such as the recognition of the instant crime, the fact that the defendant has no record of criminal punishment after 1986, and the fact that he/she has no record of criminal punishment after 1986, and other circumstances that appear in the records and arguments, such as the age, character, conduct and environment, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment shall be determined as ordered.