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

On June 22, 2020, the Defendant: (a) received a report from C on June 22, 2020, that “I son and interfere with his business,” and received a 112 report that “I son shall interfere with his business; (b) the head, who was asked by the slope E belonging to the C District Unit of the Sejong Police Station, was pushed off with the head, who was tightly pushed off and worn by E, and assaulted by his hand.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of 112 reporting duties by police officers who wear a uniform.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statements made to F and E;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

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 requires a strict punishment in that the defendant had been punished for the same crime in the past, even though he had the record of repeatedly committing the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties in this case. Meanwhile, the defendant appears to repeat such crime under the influence of alcohol in lieu of the defendant, the exercise of tangible power by the defendant in the crime in this case is relatively minor, depth is against the defendant, and the minor child is in the place where the minor should be taken care of the defendant alone, taking into account other various circumstances, including the defendant's age, sex behavior, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., and the punishment against the defendant is determined as ordered.