공무집행방해
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Punishment of the crime
Around 00:07 on December 12, 2013, the Defendant: (a) arrested a flagrant offender to E, etc., who was dispatched after receiving a report from a taxi engineer that the Defendant was not paying KRW 51,680,00 from the Gangnam-gu Seoul; and (b) led the Defendant to the Seoul Western Police Station D District Office’s office located in the Seoul Western Police Station; (c) the police officers in the process of the instant case in the said office: (d) expressed that “n was unable to receive wages from the domestic tax and live; (d) Nice’s name was not known to the police officers in the process of the instant case; (e) Nice’s desire to drink; and (e) that Nice will not drink up to the end of the Bosa; and (e) assaulted the part of the said E twice.
Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers in criminal investigations.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. The second police suspect interrogation protocol partially against the accused;
1. Statement to E by the police;
1. A written statement;
1. Police seizure records;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a criminal investigation report (Evidence No. 46 pages);
1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime (the point of obstructing performance of official duties and the choice of imprisonment);
1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;
1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act / [Scope of Recommendation] Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Act / There is no basic area (6-1 year and April) of the obstruction of performance of official duties (6-1 year and April) / [Pronouncement of sentence] / The defendant is against the sentence / the defendant's degree of damage of this case, the defendant has no same military force. It is so decided as per Disposition