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

At around 23:20 on July 31, 2020, the Defendant reported 112 false contents at the Defendant’s house located in Pyeongtaek-gun B, Gangwon-gun on four occasions, and reported 4 times to the effect that D police officers assigned to the Pyeongtaek-gun, which called the site upon receipt of a report, did not have any number of fines for the Defendant, and reported to the Defendant as his day without any negligence. The Defendant asked the Defendant whether he was asked, “I shall leave all of his duties in duty, leave his clothes, leave his inside, leave his clothes, do the chief of the police station, do so.” The Defendant Do d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d f.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of police officers' duties on 112 reporting due to violence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to F and D;

1. Application of on-site photographs, CCTV images CDs, and reporting processing statute 112;

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. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on probation and community service order;

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: One to five years of imprisonment;

2. The scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines [decision of types] of the obstruction of performance of official duties: [Type 1] No person shall be subject to the obstruction of performance of official duties or coercion of official duties [the scope of recommended areas and recommendations] (the scope of recommended areas and recommendations] basic area, six months to one year and six months.

3. The Defendant was assaulted by a police officer who is performing legitimate duties.

In order to establish the state's legal order and eradicate the light of the public authority, such obstruction of the performance of official duties shall not be deemed to be negligiblely committed.

In particular, the defendant is sentenced to a fine of KRW 1 million due to the crime of attempted damage to public documents in 2002, and a fine of KRW 10 million due to the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties in 2003, and the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties in 2007.