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

Around 21:50 on December 30, 2019, the Defendant: (a) requested personal information from the police officer D of the House C District Police Station, who was called up after receiving a 112 reported telephone due to the so-called 112 act, such as an agent, time-fluence, and breaking up the above apartment standing signboard, and (b) avoided the site, and (c) ordered the fluence of the said D one time as drinking.

As a result, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The D Evidence List is indicated as E, but it is obvious that it is a clerical error in D.

The police statement about the police record;

1. Application of statutes on field photographs;

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

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

1. Scope of punishment by law: One month to five years;

2. The scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines [decision of types] the obstruction of performance of official duties (category 1] and the absence of the obstruction of performance of official duties [the scope of the recommended area and the scope of the recommended punishment], the basic area of the obstruction of performance of official duties (the scope of the recommended area and the recommendation), six months to one year and six months.

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for six months, the crime of this case for two years of suspended execution shall not be deemed to have exercised the direct tangible power against police officers performing official duties;

The accused has been punished for a crime of violence in 2012.

However, the punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the fact that the defendant is against his mistake, the fact that there is no record of crime exceeding the fine, and the degree and method of assault of this case, the degree of damage, the age, character and conduct of the defendant, and other factors of sentencing as shown in the records.