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

On January 12, 2020, around the hotel in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, at around 00:50 on January 12, 2020, the Defendant sought personal information from C (the age of 27) of the Seoul Yeongdeungpo Military Police Station, who was called up after receiving 112 reports that the Defendant would put his/her old-urinology, to ask the Defendant about his/her personal information in order to notify the Defendant.

Accordingly, 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. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of the respective Acts and subordinate statutes of D and E;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc.;

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 type] the obstruction of performance of official duties [Type 1]/ the obstruction of performance of official duties [the scope of recommendations and recommendations] no person shall be subject to the coercion of official duties [the scope of recommendations and recommendations]. The basic area of recommendation, six months to one year and six months.

3. Determination of sentence: A sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for six months, conditions unfavorable to a suspended sentence of two years: one time for the same kind of fine (205, a fine of two million won) and the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties requires strict punishment as a crime detrimental to the function of the State by impeding the legitimate exercise of public authority; and the circumstances favorable to the fact that the defendant did not receive a letter from the victimized police officer are contradictory to the above, the sentence as ordered shall be determined by taking into account all the conditions of arguments and the sentencing indicated in the records of the instant case, such as the circumstances in which the defendant was not able to pay attention, and the age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime