On September 20, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment by the Gwangju High Court for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, etc., and was provisionally released on February 28, 2013 during the execution of the sentence.

3. 23. The parole period expired.

On January 14, 2015, at around 20:25, the Defendant: (a) stated that “D,” located in Yong-gun C, Yong-gun, Yong-Nam; (b) the Defendant, upon receipt of a report that he was suffering from disturbance, sent to the slopeF belonging to the Youngnam Police Station E-gu, Youngnam Police Station E-gu, which called “Ie, Iek, Iek, Iek, Iek, Iek, ambom, Iek the fumum part of Fump by drinking, and ambling the fump.

Even after the Defendant was arrested as a flagrant offender in the above temporary border and moved to the E zone located in Yong-nam Cancer G, the Defendant assaulted the F’s left upper part and the chin part once by launching.

As a result, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties on the handling of 112 reports by police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to F and H;

1. Damage photographs and CCTV image data in a police box;

1. Previous convictions indicated in the judgment: Application of criminal records and other inquiries inquiry reports, and the current status of personal identification and acceptance (A) Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 136 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. The reason for sentencing Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated offenders;

1. Determination of types of crimes: Type 1 of obstruction of performance of official duties;

2. Determination of the scope of sentence: Basic area, six months to one year and four months (no special person shall be punished);

3. In light of the fact that the defendant who was sentenced to the sentence committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime and the degree of obstruction of performance of official duties is not less than that of the defendant, it is inevitable to sentence the sentence to the defendant.

However, in consideration of the fact that the defendant recognizes and reflects his/her mistake, the fact that the defendant appears to be a contingent crime, the fact that there is no same criminal records, the age of the defendant, family relationship, etc., the sentencing criteria for the defendant is exceeded.