공무집행방해
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Punishment of the crime
around 02:40 on October 26, 2017, the Defendant demanded a fire-fighting official E working in the Dong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City’s D Situation Office to “influence of an ambulances to a hospital located in Seoul,” but, on the ground that he refused it, assaulted E’s face with the face that “the condition of the driver’s service is poor.”
Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of official duties of fire officers.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement by the defendant in court;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of police statement protocol to E;
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. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution ( normal consideration considered as follows):
1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act [Scope of Recommendation] : (a) the mitigated area of Category 1 (Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties and Compelling of Duties) [Special mitigated Persons] [In the case where there occurs any serious injury (type 1, serious injury] [Determination of sentence] / The sentencing conditions specified in the trial process of this case, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, family relationship, family environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., shall be determined in full view of the following circumstances.
A favorable condition: The defendant led to the confession of the crime of this case and reflects his mistake.
There is no record of punishment for interference with the performance of official duties in the past.
The damaged public officials expressed their intention not to punish.
The act of obstructing the performance of official duties of fire-fighting officers should be punished strictly because it could hinder the duty of life rescue of fire-fighting officers.
The defendant has been subject to punishment of imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment on several occasions due to the obstruction of business in the past.