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

On October 29, 2016, the Defendant was stolen from the side of the road in front of C in the Chungcheongnam-nam Budget Group B around 16:25 on October 29, 2016.

12 reported 112, and after receiving a report, the report was sent to the site by the Dognam National Police Station Dridge E and F, and the reporter was asked by the police officer for personal information and the details of the report, and the person was asked first of all on his/her personal information on the scene of the crime without taking any measures against the scene of the crime, and assaulted on the ground that “I will now be asked by the Si Office, what is, the Si Office should do, grang, grang, and grane the flab of Ealthical slope.”

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning the handling of 112 reports.

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 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of the Social Service Order and the reason for the protection and observation of protection and the reason for sentencing [the scope of recommendation] of Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Act [the scope of punishment] There is no basic area (the imprisonment of six months to one year and six months) (the imprisonment of one month) [the person subject to special sentencing] [the decision of sentence] State’s legitimate exercise of public authority should be protected for peace and safety of all citizens including the accused himself.

Nevertheless, in light of the fact that the Defendant, by insulting speech and behavior against the police officers wearing a uniform, obstructed the exercise of public authority and undermined the morale of the police officers who perform their duties, and had already been punished by a fine for interference with the performance of official duties in 2013, the Defendant is bad in light of the fact that the police officers were punished by a fine for interference with the performance of official duties.

However, in light of the favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant's mistake is against himself/herself, the fact that there is no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine between the last twenty years, and all other circumstances constituting the conditions for sentencing, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, circumstances of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the punishment shall be determined like the order.